Clinimetrics corner: The global rating of change score (GRoC) poorly correlates with functional measures and is not temporally stable

Journal of Manual and Manipulative Therapy

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 178-181

  Garrison, Craig ^a   Cook, Chad ^b  

^a Texas Health Ben Hogan Sports Medicine   (United States)

^b WALSH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Global rating of change; Outcomes measures; Shoulder impingement

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FOLLOW UP; GLOBAL RATING OF CHANGE SCORE; HUMAN; MEDIAL LONGITUDINAL BUNDLE; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RECALL BIAS; RELIABILITY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

EID: 84869749807     PISSN: 10669817     EISSN: 20426186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1179/1066981712Z.00000000022     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clin Trials. 1989;10:407-15.
2. Garrison JC, Shanley E, Thigpen C, Hegedus E, Cook C. Between-session changes predict overall perception of improvement but not functional improvement in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome seen for physical therapy: an observational study. Physiother Theory Pract. 2011;27(2):137-45.
3. Mintken PE, Glynn P, Cleland JA. Psychometric properties of the shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) and numeric pain rating scale in patients with shoulder pain. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18:920-6.
4. Ross M. Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychol Rev. 1989;96:341-57.
5. Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:869-79.
6. Schmitt JC, Di Fabio RP. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:1008-18.
7. Schmitt JC, Di Fabio RP. The validity of prospective and retrospective global change criterion measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:2270-6.
8. Cook C. Mode of administration bias. J Man Manip Ther. 2010;18(2):61-3.
9. Kamper S, Maher C, Mackay G. Global Rating of Change Scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17(3):163-70.
10. Garrison JC, Shanley E, Thigpen C, Hegedus E, Cook C. Between-session changes predict overall perception of improvement but not functional improvement in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome seen for physical therapy: an observational study. Physiother Theory Pract. 2011;27:137-45.
11. Cook C, Hegedus E, Goode A, Mina C, Pietrobon R, Higgins LD. Relative validity of the modified American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (M-ASES) questionnaire using item response theory. Rheumatol Int. 2008;28:217-23.
12. Westaway MD, Stratford PW, Binkley JM. The patient-specific functional scale: validation of its use in persons with neck dysfunction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;27:331-8.
13. McClure P, Michener L. Measures of adult shoulder function. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;49:50-8.
14. Kocher MS, Horan MP, Briggs KK, Richardson TR, O'Holleran J, Hawkins RJ. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons subjective shoulder scale in patients with shoulder instability, rotator cuff disease and glenohumeral arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg. 2005;87:2006-11.
15. Michener L., McClure PW, Sennett BJ. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11:587-94.
16. Fritz JM, Hebert J, Koppenhaver S, Parent E. Beyond minimally important change. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:2803-9.