Agreement between pre-post measures of change and transition ratings as well as then-tests

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Meyer, Thorsten ^a   Richter, Susanne ^b   Raspe, Heiner ^b  

^a HANNOVER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LÜBECK   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATOR; HEART DISEASE; HUMAN; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HEART DISEASES; HUMANS; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUESTIONNAIRES;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84875341054     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-52     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Underreporting by cancer patients: the case of response-shift. Breetvelt IS, van Dam FSAM, Soc Sci Med 1991 32 981 987 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90156-7 2047902
2. Toward a theoretical model of quality of life appraisal: implications for findings from studies of response shift. Rapkin BD, Schwartz CE, Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004 2 14 10.1186/1477-7525-2-14 15023229
3. The clinical significance of adaption to changing health: a meta-analysis of response-shift. Schwartz CE, Bode R, Repucci N, Becker J, Sprangers MAG, Fayers PM, Qual Life Res 2006 15 1533 1550 10.1007/s11136-006-0025-9 17031503
4. Zur Messung patientennaher Erfolgskriterien in der medizinischen Rehabilitation: Wie gut stimmen "indirekte"und "direkte" Methoden der Veränderungsmessung überein? [Measuring patient related outcome criteria in medical rehabilitation: how well do "indirect" and "direct" methods of measuring change agree?]. Kohlmann T, Raspe H, Rehabilitation 1998 37 24 S31 9706111
5. Die faktorielle Struktur der direkten und der indirekten Veränderungsmessung in der medizinischen Rehabilitation-Analysen auf Itemebene. [The factor structure of direct and indirect methods for measuring change in medical rehabilitation-analyses on item level]. Meyer-Moock S, Moock J, Mittag O, Kohlmann T, Rehabilitation 2012 51 118 128 e-pub ahead of print 10.1055/s-0031-1271700 21647852
6. Recall bias did not affect perceived magnitude of change in health-related functional status. Middel B, Goudriaan H, de Greef M, Stewart R, von Sonderen E, Bouma J, de Jongste M, J Clin Epidemiol 2006 59 503 511 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.08.018 16632139
7. A critical look at transition ratings. Guyatt GH, Norman GR, Juniper EF, Griffith LE, J Clin Epidemiol 2002 55 900 908 10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00435-3 12393078
8. Evidence of disagreement between patient-perceived change and conventional longitudinal evaluation of change in health-related quality of life among older adults. McPhail S, Comans T, Haines T, Clin Rehabil 2010 24 1036 1044 10.1177/0269215510371422 20702509
9. Does recollection error threaten the validity of cross-sectional studies of effectiveness? Mancuso CA, Charlson ME, Med Care 1995 33 S77 AS88 7723463
10. Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Ross M, Psychol Rev 1989 96 341 357
11. Global perceived effect scales provided reliable assessment of health transitions in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. Kamper SJ, Ostelo RWJG, Knol DL, Maher CG, deVet HCW, Hancock MJ, J Clin Epidemiol 2010 63 760 766 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.09.009 20056385
12. Single-change items did not measure change in quality of life. Rose AJ, Sacks NC, Deshpande AP, Griffin SY, Cabral HJ, Kazis LE, J Clin Epidemiol 2008 61 603 608 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.07.010 18471664
13. The validity of prospective and retrospective global change criterion measures. Schmitt J, Di Fabio RP, Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005 86 2270 2276 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.07.290 16344022
14. Relationship between domain-specific measures of health to perceived overall health among older subjects. Kempen GIJM, Miedema I, van den Bos GAM, Ormel J, J Clin Epidemiol 1998 51 11 18 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00234-5 9467630
15. Why don't we ask patients with coronary heart disease directly how much they have changed after treatment? Middel B, deGreef M, de Jongste MJL, Crijns HJGM, Stewart R, van den Heuvel WJA, J Cardiopulm Rehabil 2002 22 47 52 10.1097/00008483-200201000-00007 11839997
16. Blessmann A, Krankheitsverläufe bei chronischen Erkrankungen. Welche Methode der Veränderungsmessung eignet sich zu ihrer Beschreibung und Prognose? [course of chronic diseases: which method of change measurement is suitable for description and prognosis?] Doctoral thesis Bielefeld, Germany: University of Bielefeld 2004
17. Ein aktueller Überblick zur Reha-Qualitätssicherung der Rentenversicherung. Klosterhuis H, Baumgarten E, Beckmann U, Erbstößer S, Lindow B, Naumann B, Widera T, Zander J, Rehabilitation 2010 49 356 367 10.1055/s-0030-1268433 21140319
18. Patient-reported outcomes in rehabilitation research: instruments and current developments in Germany. Moock J, Kohlmann T, Zwingmann C, J Public Health 2006 14 333 342 10.1007/s10389-006-0065-1
19. Indikatoren des Reha-Status (IRES). Ein Patientenfragebogen zur Beurteilung von Rehabilitationsbedürftigkeit und -erfolg ["Indicators of Reha-Status (IRES)"- a patient questionnaire for assessing need and success of rehabilitation]. Gerdes J, Jäckel WH, Rehabilitation 1992 31 73 79 1636048
20. Bullinger M, Kirchberger I, SF-36 Fragebogen zum Gesundheitszustand [German SF-36 Short Form Health Survey] Göttingen: Hogrefe 1998
21. Franke G, Die Symptom Checkliste von Derogatis. Deutsche Version SCL-90-R [Symtom checklist by Derogatis. German Version SCL-90-R] Göttingen: Beltz 1992
22. Comorbidity and disease burden in the national comorbidity survey replication (NCS-R). Gadermann AM, Alonso J, Vilagut G, Zaslavsky AM, Kessler RC, Depress Anxiety 2012 [Epub ahead of print] 10.1002/da.21924
23. Comorbidity of low back pain: representative outcomes of a national health study in the Federal Republic of Germany. Schneider S, Mohnen SM, Schiltenwolf M, Rau C, Eur J Pain 2007 11 387 397 10.1016/j.ejpain.2006.05.005 16793296
24. Comparison of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG, Med Care 1990 28 632 642 10.1097/00005650- 199007000-00008 2366602
25. Clinical significance of patient-reported questionnaire data: another step toward consensus. Sloan JA, Cella D, Hays RD, J Clin Epidemiol 2005 58 1217 1219 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.009 16291464
26. Are retrospective measures of change in quality of life more valid than prospective measures? Nieuwerk PT, Tollenaar MS, Oort FJ, Sprangers MAG, Med Care 2007 45 199 205 10.1097/01.mlr.0000246613.49214.46 17304076
27. Assessing change in chronic pain severity: the chronic pain grade compared with retrospective perceptions. Elliott AM, Smith BH, Hannaford PC, Smith WC, Chambers WA, Br J Gen Pract 2002 52 269 274 11942442
28. Missing data due to a 'checklist misconception-effect'. Meyer T, Schäfer I, Matthis C, Kohlmann T, Mittag O, Social and Preventive Medicine 2006 51 34 42 10.1007/s00038-005-0005-9 16898236