Interpretation of response categories in patient-reported rating scales: A controlled study among people with Parkinson's disease

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Volumn 8, Issue , 2010, Pages

  Knutsson, Ida ^a   Rydström, Helena ^a   Reimer, Jan ^b   Nyberg, Per ^a   Hagell, Peter ^a,b  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE DURATION; DYSKINESIA; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; MORBIDITY; PARKINSON DISEASE; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; RASCH ANALYSIS; RATING SCALE; SELF MONITORING; SELF REPORT; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CLASSIFICATION; HOSPITALIZATION; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; SWEDEN;

AGED; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PARKINSON DISEASE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SWEDEN;

EID: 77955151156     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14777525     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-8-61     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology 1932, 140:1-55.
2. Krosnick JA. Survey research. Annu Rev Psychol 1999, 50:537-567. 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.537, 15012463.
3. Merbitz C, Morris J, Grip JC. Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989, 70:308-312.
4. Stevens SS. On the Theory of Scales of Measurement. Science 1946, 103:677-680. 10.1126/science.103.2684.677, 17750512.
5. Food and Drug Administration Patient-Reported Outcome measures: Use in Medicinal Product Development to Support Labelling Claims. Washington D.C. 2009, Retrieved on June 23, 2010, Food and Drug Administration., http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf
6. Cox EP. The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale: A review. Journal of Marketing Research 1980, 17:407-422.
7. Hawthorne G, Mouthaan J, Forbes D, Novaco RW. Response categories and anger measurement: do fewer categories result in poorer measurement?: development of the DAR5. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2006, 41:164-172. 10.1007/s00127-005-0986-y, 16362166.
8. Spector PE. Choosing response categories for summated rating scales. J Appl Psychol 1976, 61:374-375.
9. Keller SD, Ware JE, Gandek B, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, Apolone G, Bjorner JB, Brazier J, Bullinger M, Fukuhara S, et al. Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 1998, 51:933-944. 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00084-5, 9817110.
10. Skevington SM, Tucker C. Designing response scales for cross-cultural use in health care: data from the development of the UK WHOQOL. Br J Med Psychol 1999, 72(1):51-61. 10.1348/000711299159817, 10194572.
11. Szabo S, . the WHOQOL Group The World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) Assessment Instrument. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials 1996, 355-362. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Spilker B, Second, the WHOQOL Group.
12. Franchignoni F, Ferriero G, Giordano A, Guglielmi V, Picco D. Rasch psychometric validation of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy questionnaire in people with Parkinson's disease. Europa medicophysica 2007, 43:451-461.
13. Franchignoni F, Giordano A, Ferriero G. Rasch analysis of the short form 8-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8). Qual Life Res 2008, 17:541-548. 10.1007/s11136-008-9341-6, 18415705.
14. Hagell P, McKenna SP. International use of health status questionnaires in Parkinson's disease: translation is not enough. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2003, 10:89-92. 10.1016/S1353-8020(03)00110-X, 14643998.
15. Hagell P, Nilsson MH. The 39-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39): is it a unidimensional construct?. Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders 2009, 2:205-214.
16. Hobart J, Cano S. Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: the role of new psychometric methods. Health Technol Assess 2009, 13. iii, ix-x, 1-177.
17. Nilsson AL, Sunnerhagen KS, Grimby G. Scoring alternatives for FIM in neurological disorders applying Rasch analysis. Acta Neurol Scand 2005, 111:264-273. 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2005.00404.x, 15740579.
18. Mills R, Young C, Nicholas R, Pallant J, Tennant A. Rasch analysis of the Fatigue Severity Scale in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2009, 15:81-87. 10.1177/1352458508096215, 18755824.
19. Andrich D, De Jong JHA, Sheridan B. Diagnostic opportunities with the Rasch model for ordered response categories. Applications of latent trait and latent class models in the social sciences 1997, 58-68. Münster: Waxmann Verlag, Rost J, Langeheine R.
20. Gibb WR, Lees AJ. The relevance of the Lewy body to the pathogenesis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1988, 51:745-752. 10.1136/jnnp.51.6.745, 1033142, 2841426.
21. Hagell P, Törnqvist AL, Hobart J. Testing the SF-36 in Parkinson's disease: Implications for reporting rating scale data. J Neurol 2008, 255:246-254. 10.1007/s00415-008-0708-y, 18204806.
22. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992, 30:473-483. 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002, 1593914.
23. Hoehn MM, Yahr MD. Parkinsonism: onset, progression and mortality. Neurology 1967, 17:427-442.
24. Brown RG, Dittner A, Findley L, Wessely SC. The Parkinson fatigue scale. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2005, 11:49-55. 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2004.07.007, 15619463.
25. de Boer AG, Wijker W, Speelman JD, de Haes JC. Quality of life in patients with Parkinson's disease: development of a questionnaire. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1996, 61:70-74. 10.1136/jnnp.61.1.70, 486462, 8676165.
26. Katzenschlager R, Schrag A, Evans A, Manson A, Carroll CB, Ottaviani D, Lees AJ, Hobart J. Quantifying the impact of dyskinesias in PD: the PDYS-26: a patient-based outcome measure. Neurology 2007, 69:555-563. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000266669.18308.af, 17679674.
27. Peto V, Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Greenhall R. The development and validation of a short measure of functioning and well being for individuals with Parkinson's disease. Qual Life Res 1995, 4:241-248. 10.1007/BF02260863, 7613534.
28. Welsh M, McDermott MP, Holloway RG, Plumb S, Pfeiffer R, Hubble J. Development and testing of the Parkinson's disease quality of life scale. Mov Disord 2003, 18:637-645. 10.1002/mds.10424, 12784266.
29. Yellen SB, Cella DF, Webster K, Blendowski C, Kaplan E. Measuring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) measurement system. J Pain Symptom Manage 1997, 13:63-74. 10.1016/S0885-3924(96)00274-6, 9095563.
30. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological) 1995, 57:289-300.
31. Zwick R. Nonparametric one-way multivariate analysis of variance: a computational approach based on the Pillai-Bartlett trace. Psychol Bull 1985, 97:148-152. 10.1037/0033-2909.97.1.148, 3983296.
32. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 2008, New York: Oxford University Press Inc, 4.
33. Wright BD, Linacre JM. Observations are always ordinal; measurements, however, must be interval. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989, 70:857-860.
34. Zhu W. Should total scores from a rating scale be used directly?. Res Q Exerc Sport 1996, 67:363-372.
35. Svensson E. Comparison of the quality of assessments using continuous and discrete ordinal rating scales. Biometrical Journal 2000, 42:417-434.
36. Hofmans J, Theuns P. On the linearity of predefined and self-anchoring Visual Analogue Scales. Br J Math Stat Psychol 2008, 61:401-413. 10.1348/000711007X206817, 17535485.
37. Myles PS, Troedel S, Boquest M, Reeves M. The pain visual analog scale: is it linear or nonlinear?. Anesth Analg 1999, 89:1517-1520. 10.1097/00000539-199912000-00038, 10589640.
38. Bryant GD, Norman GR. Expressions of probability: words and numbers. N Engl J Med 1980, 302:411.
39. Hakel MD. How often is often?. Am Psychol 1968, 23:533-534. 10.1037/h0037716, 5660355.
40. Schaeffer NC. Hardly ever or constantly? Group comparisons using vague quantifiers. Public Opin Q 1991, 55:395-423.
41. Andrich D. Understanding ordered category response data from the perspective of the Rasch model. Educ Res Eval 1998, 25:25-35.
42. Dubois B, Burns JA. An analysis of the meaning of the question mark response category in attitude scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1975, 35:869-884.
43. Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 1978, 43:561-574.
44. Luo G. The relationship between the Rating Scale and Partial Credit Models and the implication of disordered thresholds of the Rasch models for polytomous responses. J Appl Meas 2005, 6:443-455.
45. Andrich D. Rasch models for measurement. 1988, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc.
46. Hobart JC, Cano SJ, Zajicek JP, Thompson AJ. Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: problems, solutions, and recommendations. Lancet Neurol 2007, 6:1094-1105. 10.1016/S1474-4422(07)70290-9, 18031706.
47. Perline R, Wright BD, Wainer H. The Rasch model as additive conjoint measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement 1979, 3:237-255.
48. Delandshere G, Petrosky AR. Assessment of complex performances: limitations of key measurement assumptions. Educational Researcher 1998, 27:14-24.
49. Svensson E. Construction of a single global scale for multi-item assessments of the same variable. Stat Med 2001, 20:3831-3846. 10.1002/sim.1148, 11782037.