Making the best match: Selecting outcome measures for clinical trials and outcome studies

American Journal of Occupational Therapy

Volumn 67, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 162-170

  Coster, Wendy J ^a  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical trials as topic; Decision making; Guidelines as topic; Outcome assessment (health care); Treatment outcome

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CONFERENCE PAPER; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; TIME; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84875840640     PISSN: 02729490     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5014/ajot.2013.006015     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. Bruininks, R. H., Woodcock, R. W., Weatherman, R. F., & Hill, B. K. (1996). Scales of Independent Behavior-revised. Chicago: Riverside.
2. Coster, W. J. (2006). Evaluating the use of assessments in practice and research. In G. Kielhofner (Ed.), Research in occupational therapy: Methods of inquiry for enhancing practice (pp. 201-212). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.
3. Coster, W. J., Haley, S. M., & Jette, A. M. (2006). Measuring patient-reported outcomes after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation settings. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 38, 237-242. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/16501970600609774
4. Coster, W. J., Ludlow, L., & Mancini, M. (1999). Using IRT variable maps to enrich understanding of rehabilitation data. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 3, 123-133.
5. Dromerick, A. W., Edwards, D. F., & Diringer, M. N. (2003). Sensitivity to changes in disability after stroke: A comparison of four scales useful in clinical trials. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 40, 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2003.01.0001 (Pubitemid 36337060)
6. Duncan, P. W., Jorgensen, H. S., & Wade, D. T. (2000). Outcome measures in acute stroke trials: A systematic review and some recommendations to improve practice. Stroke, 31, 1429-1438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.31.6. 1429 (Pubitemid 30351269)
7. Duncan, P. W., Lai, S. M., & Keighley, J. (2000). Defining post-stroke recovery: Implications for design and interpretation of drug trials. Neuropharmacology, 39, 835-841. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3908(00)00003-4 (Pubitemid 30103686)
8. King, G., Law, M., King, S., Hurley, P., Rosenbaum, P., Hanna, S., ⋯ Young, N. (2004). Children's Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment and Preferences for Activities of Children. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
9. Lawrence, R. H., & Jette, A. M. (1996). Disentangling the disablement process. Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 51, 173-182.
10. Lehman, L. A., & Velozo, C. A. (2010). Ability to detect change in patient function: Responsiveness designs and methods of calculation. Journal of Hand Therapy, 23, 361-370, quiz 371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2010.05.003
11. Liang, M. H. (2000). Longitudinal construct validity: Establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Medical Care, 38(Suppl.), II84-II90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200009002-00013
12. Meyers, A. R., & Andresen, E. M. (2000). Enabling our instruments: Accommodation, universal design, and access to participation in research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81(Suppl. 2), S5-S9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2000.20618
13. Prvu Bettger, J. A., Coster, W. J., Latham, N. K., & Keysor, J. J. (2008). Analyzing change in recovery patterns in the year after acute hospitalization. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89, 1267-1275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.046 (Pubitemid 351888343)
14. Schepers, V. P., Ketelaar, M., Visser-Meily, J. M., Dekker, J., & Lindeman, E. (2006). Responsiveness of functional health status measures frequently used in stroke research. Disability and Rehabilitation, 28, 1035-1040. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09638280500494694 (Pubitemid 44322639)
15. Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Balla, D. A. (2005). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-Vineland II. Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.
16. Stolee, P., Lim, S. N., Wilson, L., & Glenny, C. (2012). Inpatient versus home-based rehabilitation for older adults with musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review. Clinical Rehabilitation, 26, 387-402.
17. Tulsky, D. S., Carlozzi, N. E., & Cella, D. (2011). Advances in outcomes measurement in rehabilitation medicine: Current initiatives from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92(Suppl.), S1-S6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2011.07. 202
18. Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation. (1997). Guide for the Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation (including the FIM instrument), Version 5.1. Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo.
19. van der Putten, J. J., Hobart, J.C., Freeman, J. A.,&Thompson, A. J. (1999). Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: Comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel index and the Functional Independence Measure. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 66, 480-484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.66.4.480 (Pubitemid 29145683)
20. Ware, J. F., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1994). The SF-36 physical and mental summary scales: A user's manual. Boston: Health Institute, New England Medical Center.
21. Whyte, J., & Barrett, A. M. (2012). Advancing the evidence base of rehabilitation treatments: A developmental approach. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93(Suppl. 2), S101-S110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.apmr. 2011.040