Composite rating scales

Journal of the Neurological Sciences

Volumn 289, Issue 1-2, 2010, Pages 7-11

  Martinez Martin, Pablo ^a,b,c  

^a University Hospital Reina Sofia   (Spain)

^b CARLOS III INSTITUTE OF HEALTH   (Spain)

^c CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIÓN BIOMÉDICA EN RED SOBRE ENFERMEDADES NEURODEGENERATIVAS CIBERNED   (Spain)

Author keywords

Classical Test Theory; Clinimetrics; Item Response Theory; Multi item scales; Psychometric theories; Rating scales; Single item scales; Summative scores

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLASSICAL TEST THEORY; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; ITEM RESPONSE THEORY; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM;

EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 74149091541     PISSN: 0022510X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2009.08.013     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Stevens S.S. On the theory of the scales and measurement. Science 103 (1946) 677-680
2. World Health Organization. International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps: A manual of classification relating to the consequences of disease (1980), World Health Organization, Geneva
3. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (2001), World Health Organization, Geneva
4. LaRocca N.G. Statistical and methodologic considerations in scale construction. In: Munsat T.L. (Ed). Quantification of neurologic deficit (1989), Butterworth Publishers, Boston 49-67
5. Altman D.G. Practical statistics for medical research (1991), Chapman & Hall/ CRC, Boca Raton, FL
6. Nunnally J.C., and Bernstein I.H. Psychometric theory (1994), McGraw-Hill, New York
7. Streiner D.L., and Norman G.R. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. 3rd ed. (2003), Oxford University Press, Oxford
8. Heyen P. The principles of biomedical statistics. In: Masur H. (Ed). Scales and scores in Neurology. Quantification of neurological deficits in research and practice (2004), Thieme, Stuttgart 13-51
9. Schwab R.S., and England A.C. Projection technique for evaluating surgery in Parkinson's disease. In: Gillingham F.J., and Donaldson I. (Eds). Third Symposium on Parkinson's disease (1969), E and S Livingstone, Edinburgh 152-157
10. Mahoney F.I., and Barthel D.W. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J 14 (1965) 61-65
11. Fahn S., and Elton R. Members of the UPDRS Development Committee. Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale. In: Fahn S., Marsden C., Calne D., and Goldstein M. (Eds). Recent developments in Parkinson's disease vol. 2 (1987), Macmillan Health Care Information, Florham Park, NJ 153-164
12. Zimmerman M., Ruggero C.J., Chelminski I., Young D., Posternak M.A., Friedman M., et al. eveloping brief scales for use in clinical practice: the reliability and validity of single-item self-report measures of Depression Symptom Severity, psychosocial impairment due to depression, and quality of life. J Clin Psychiatry 67 (2006) 1536-1541
13. DeVellis R.F. Classical Test Theory. Med Care 44 (2006) 50-59
14. Bowling A. Research methods in health. Investigating health and health services. 2nd ed. (2002), Open University Press, Berkshire 289-294
15. Massof R.W. The measurement of vision disability. Optom Vis Sci 79 (2002) 516-552
16. Wright B.D., and Linacre J.M. Observations are always ordinal; measurements, however, must be interval. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 70 (1989) 857-860
17. Hobart J. Rating scales for neurologists. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 74 Suppl IV (2003) 22-26
18. Sloan J.A., Aaronson N., Cappelleri J.C., Fairclough D.L., and Varricchio C. The Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores. Mayo Clin Proc 77 (2002) 479-487
19. Hambleton R.K., Swaminathan H., and Rogers H.J. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory (1991), Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California
20. Hambleton R.K. Emergence of Item Response Modeling in instrument development and data analysis. Med Care 38 Suppl II (2000) 60-65
21. Fayers P.M., and Machin D. Quality of life. The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. 2nd ed. (2007), John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, UK
22. Cook C., Monahan P.O., and McHorney C.A. Delicate balance between theory and practice. Health Status Assessment and Item Response Theory. Med Care 41 (2003) 571-574
23. Martínez-Martín P., Forjaz M.J., Cubo E., Frades B., de Pedro Cuesta J., and ELEP Project Members. Global versus factor-related impression of severity in Parkinson's disease: a new clinimetric index (CISI-PD). Mov Disord 21 (2006) 208-214
24. Fava G.A., Ruini C., and Rafanelli C. Psychometric theory is an obstacle to the progress of clinical research. Psychother Psychosom 73 (2004) 145-148
25. Streiner D.L. Clinimetrics vs. psychometrics: an unnecessary distinction. J Clin Epidemiol 56 (2003) 1142-1145
26. Hobart J. Measuring disease impact in disabling neurological conditions: are patients' perspectives and scientific rigor compatible?. Curr Opin Neurol 15 (2002) 721-724
27. Andrich A. Controversy and the Rasch model. A characteristic of incompatible paradigms?. Med Care 42 Suppl 1 (2004) 7-16
28. Marx G.R., Bombardier C., Hogg-Johnson S., and Wright J.G. Clinimetrics and psychometric strategies for development of a health measurement scale. J Clin Epidemiol 52 (1999) 105-111
29. Hobart J.C., Cano S.J., Zajicek J.P., and Thompson A.J. Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: problems, solutions, and recommendations. Lancet Neurol 6 (2007) 1094-1095
30. Kondraske G.V., and Stewart R.M. Quantitative characterization of disease severity in diseases with complex symptom profiles. Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 1 (2006) 3966-3999
31. Hays R.D., Morales L.S., and Reise S.P. Item Response Theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 38 Suppl II (2000) 28-42
32. International Society for Pharmaeconomics and Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research. ISPOR Patient Reported Outcomes Good Research Practices. [Accessed: October 15, 2008]. Available in: http://www.ispor.org/workpaper/research_practices/PRO_practices.asp.
33. Goetz C.G., Poewe W., Rascol O., Sampaio C., Stebbins G.T., Counsell C., et al. Movement Disorder Society Task Force report on the Hoehn and Yahr staging scale: status and recommendations. Mov Disord 19 (2004) 1020-1028
34. Goetz C.G., Fahn S., Martinez-Martin P., Poewe W., Sampaio C., Stebbins G.T., et al. Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): process, format and clinimetric testing plan. Mov Disord 22 (2007) 41-47
35. Mokkink L.B., Terwee C.B., Knol D.L., Strstford P.W., Alonso J., and Patrick D.L. Protocol of the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. BMC Med Res Methodol 6 (2006) 2
36. Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 11 (2002) 193-205
37. Terwee C.B., Bot S.D.M., de Boer M.R., van der Windt D.A.W.M., Knol D.L., Dekker J., et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60 (2007) 34-42