Global rating of change scales: A review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design

Journal of Manual and Manipulative Therapy

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 163-170

  Kamper, Steven J ^a   Maher, Christopher G ^a   Mackay, Grant ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Clinimetrics; Global rating of change; Outcome measure

Indexed keywords

CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; FACE VALIDITY; GLOBAL RATING OF CHANGE SCALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RATING SCALE; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; THERAPY EFFECT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 70349742604     PISSN: 10669817     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1179/jmt.2009.17.3.163     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. Beaton DE. Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness. Spine 2000;25:3192-3199.
2. nd ed. Phys Ther 2001;81:9-746.
3. Resnik L, Dobrzykowski E. Guide to outcome measurement for patients with low back pain syndromes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2003;33:307-318. (Pubitemid 36870465)
4. Gridley L, van den Dolder PA. The percentage improvement in pain scale as a measure of physiotherapy treatment effects. Aust J Physiother 2001;47:133-136. (Pubitemid 33768405)
5. Jull G, Trott P, Potter H, et al. A randomized controlled trial of exercise and manipulative therapy for cervicogenic headache. Spine 2002;27:1835-1843. (Pubitemid 35006676)
6. Kay TM, Gross A, Goldsmith C, Santaguida PL, Hoving J, Bronfort G. Exercises for mechanical neck disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005:CDOO4250.
7. Koes BWM, Bouter LMP, van Mameren HP, et al. The effectiveness of manual therapy, physiotherapy, and treatment by the general practitioner for nonspecific back and neck complaints: A randomized clinical trial. Spine 1992;17:28-35.
8. Pennie BH, Agambar LJ. Whiplash injuries: A trial of early management. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1990;72-B:277-279.
9. Hancock MJ, Maher CG, Latimer J, et al. Assessment of diclofenac or spinal manipulative therapy, or both, in addition to recommended first-line treatment for acute low back pain: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;370:1638-1643. (Pubitemid 350052289)
10. Stewart MJ, Maher CG, Refshauge KM, Herbert RD, Bogduk N, Nicholas M. Randomized controlled trial of exercise for chronic whiplash-associated disorders. Pain 2007;128:59-68. (Pubitemid 46216599)
11. Pengel LHM, Refshauge KM, Maher CG, et al.Nicholas M, Herbert RD, McNair P. Physiotherapist-directed exercise, advice, or both for subacute low back pain: A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:787-796.
12. Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: The lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:869-879. (Pubitemid 27423516)
13. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2005;113:9-19.
14. Fischer D, Stewart AL, Bloch DA, Lorig K, Laurent D, Holman H. Capturing the patient's view of change as a clinical outcome measure. JAMA 1999;282:1157-1162. (Pubitemid 29441960)
15. Herrmann D. Reporting current, past and changed health status: What we know about distortion. Med Care 1995;33:AS89-AS94.
16. Ross M. Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychol Rev 1989;96:341-357.
17. Guyatt GH, Norman GR, Juniper EF, Griffith LE. A critical look at transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol 2002;55:900-908.
18. Schmitt J, Di Fabio RP. The validity of prospective and retrospective global change criterion measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:2270-2276. (Pubitemid 41774600)
19. Stewart M, Maher CG, Refshauge KM, Bogduk N, Nicholas M. Responsiveness of pain and disability measures for chronic whiplash. Spine 2007;32:580-585.
20. Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Korsholm L, Grunnet-Nilsson N, Manniche C. Choice of external criteria in back pain research: Does it matter? Recommendations based on analysis of responsiveness. Pain 2007;131:112-120. (Pubitemid 47193213)
21. Dijkers M. Measuring quality of life: Methodological issues. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1999;78:286-300. (Pubitemid 29227178)
22. Rebbeck TJ, Refshauge KM, Maher CG, Stewart M. Evaluation of the core outcome measure in whiplash. Spine 2007;32:696-702. (Pubitemid 46573311)
23. Scrimshaw SV, Maher CG. Responsiveness of visual analogue and McGill pain scale measures. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2001;24:501-504.
24. van den Roer N, Ostelo RWJG, Bekkering GE, van Tulder MW, De Vet HCW. Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Spine 2006;31:578-582.
25. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Solomon P, Gill C, Finch E. Assessing change over time in patients with low back pain. Phys Ther 1994;74:528-533. (Pubitemid 24177846)
26. Watson CJ, Propps M, Ratner J, Zeigler DL, Horton P, Smith SS. Reliability and responsiveness of the lower extremity functional scale and the anterior knee pain scale in patients with anterior knee pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2005;35:136-146. (Pubitemid 40397234)
27. Pengel LHM, Refshauge KM, Maher CG. Responsiveness of pain, disability and physical impairment outcomes in patients with low back pain. Spine 2004;29:879-885.
28. Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ. A comparison of a modified Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire and the Quebec back disability scale. Phys Ther 2001;81:776-788.
29. Reid A, Birmingham TB, Stratford PW, Alcock GK, Giffin JR. Hop testing provides a reliable and valid outcome measure during rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Phys Ther 2007;87:337-349.
30. Riddle DL, Stratford PW, Binkley JM. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: Part 2. Phys Ther 1998;78:1197-1207. (Pubitemid 28507243)
31. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL, Guyatt GH. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: Part 1. Phys Ther 1998;78:1186-1196. (Pubitemid 28507242)
32. Stucki G, Daltroy L, Katz JN, Johannesson M, Liang MH. Interpretation of change scores in ordinal clinical scales and health status measures: The whole may not equal the sum of the parts. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:711-717. (Pubitemid 26280720)
33. Kvale A, Skoun JS, Ljunggren AE. Sensitivity to change and responsiveness of the Global Physiotherapy Examination (GPE-52) in patients with long-lasting musculoskeletal pain. Phys Ther 2005;85:712-726. (Pubitemid 41065072)
34. Gronblad M, Jarvinen E, Hurri H, Hupli M, Karaharju E. Relationship of the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and the Oswestry disability questionnaire (ODQ) with three dynamic physical tests in a group of patients with chronic low-back and leg pain. Clin J Pain 1994;10:197-203. (Pubitemid 24280193)
35. Deyo RA, Inui TS. Toward clinical applications of health status measures: Sensitivity of scale to clinically important changes. Health Serv Res 1984;19:275-289.
36. Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: An analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Diseases 1986;39:897-906.
37. Farrar JT, Young JP, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 2001;94:149-158. (Pubitemid 33016608)
38. Costa LOP, Maher CG, Latimer J, et al. Clinimetric testing of three self-report outcome measures for low back pain patients in Brazil: Which one is the best? Spine 2008;33:2459-2463.
39. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:459-468. (Pubitemid 30254341)
40. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003;41:582-592.
41. Ferreira ML, Ferreira PH, Latimer J, et al. Comparison of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: A randomized trial. Pain 2007;131:31-37. (Pubitemid 47187882)
42. Perillo M, Bulbulian R. Responsiveness of the Bounremouth and Oswestry questionnaires: A prospective pilot study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2003;26:77-86. (Pubitemid 36258848)
43. Bellamy N, Muirden KD, Brooks PM, Barraclough D, Tellus MM, Campbell J. A survey of outcome measurement procedures in routine rheumatology outpatient practice in Australia. J Rheumatol 1999;26:1593-1599. (Pubitemid 29317885)
44. Bellamy N, Kaloni S, Pope J, Coulter K, Campbell J. Quantitative rheumatology: A survey of outcome measurement procedures in routine rheumatology outpatient practice in Canada. J Rheumatol 1998;25:852-859. (Pubitemid 28210543)
45. Long AF, Dixon P. Monitoring outcomes in routine practice: Defining appropriate measurement criteria. J Eval Clin Pract 1996;2:71-78. (Pubitemid 126673964)
46. Abrams D, Davidson M, Harrick J, Harcourt P, Zylinski M, Clancy J. Monitoring the change: Current trends in outcome measurement usage in physiotherapy. Man Ther 2006;11:46-53. (Pubitemid 43121507)
47. Bombadier C. Outcomes assessment in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders. Spine 2000;25:3100-3103.
48. Middel B, Stewart R, Bouma J, van Sonderen E, van den Heuvel WJA. How to validate clinically important changes in health-related functional status: Is the magnitude of effect size consistently related to magnitude of change as indicated by a global question rating? J Eval Clin Pract 2001;7:399-410.
49. Jylha M, Volpato S, Guralnik JM. Self-rated health showed a graded association with frequently used biomarkers in a large population sample. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:465-471.
50. Schwartz CE, Sprangers MAG. Methodological approaches for assessing response shift in longitudinal health-related quality-of-life research. Soc Sci Med 1999;48:1531-1548.
51. Gardner DG, Cummings LL, Dunham RB, Pierce JL. Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Ed & Psych Measurement 1998;58:898-915.
52. Sloan JA, Aarronson N, Cappelleri JC, Fairdough DL, Varricchio C. Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores. Mayo Clinic Proceed 2002;77:479-487.
53. Beaton DE, Tarasuk V, Katz JN, Wright JG, Bombadier C. Are you better? A qualitative study of the meaning of recovery. Arthritis Care & Res 2001;45:270-279. (Pubitemid 32952908)
54. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, et al. Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain 2008;9:105-121.
55. Hudak PL, Wright JG. The characteristics of patient satisfaction measures. Spine 2000;25:3167-3177.
56. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials 1989;10:407-415. (Pubitemid 20025670)
57. Preston CC, Colman AM. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psych 2000;104:1-15.
58. Krosnick JA, Fabrigar LR. Designing rating scales for effective measurement in surveys. In Lyberg, Biemer, Collins, et al, eds. Survey Measurement and Process Quality. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 1997.
59. Miller GA. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psych Rev 1956;63:81-97.
60. Haspeslagh S, van Suijlekom H, Lame I, Kessels A, van Kleef M, Weber W. Randomised controlled trial of cervical radiofrequency lesions as a treatment for cervicogenic headache. BMC Anesthes 2006;6:1.
61. Ostelo RWJG, de Vet HCW. Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheum 2005;19:593-607. (Pubitemid 40790489)
62. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
63. American Statistical Association. The influence of administration mode on responses to numeric rating scales. Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association. 1994; Alexandria, VA.
64. Tourangeau R, Smith TW. Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection mode, question format and question context. Public Opinion Quarterly 1996:60:275-304. (Pubitemid 126102818)