Literature DB >> 11750189

A taxonomy for responsiveness.

D E Beaton1, C Bombardier, J N Katz, J G Wright.   

Abstract

Responsiveness is quickly becoming a critical criterion for the selection of outcomes measures in studies of treatment effectiveness, economic appraisals, and other program evaluations. Statistical characteristics, specifically "large effect sizes," are often felt to indicate the relative worth of one instrument over another. However, debates about their meaning led the present authors to propose a taxonomy for responsiveness based on the context of the study concerned. The three axes underlying the classification system relate to: who is this being analyzed for (individuals or groups); which scores are being contrasted (over time/at one point in time); and the type of change being quantified (for example, observed change or important change). It is concluded that responsiveness should be considered a highly contextualized attribute of an instrument, rather than a static property and should be described only in that way. A questionnaire could thus be described as being "responsive to" a given category in the new taxonomy.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11750189     DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00407-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  98 in total

1.  On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation.

Authors:  C B Terwee; F W Dekker; W M Wiersinga; M F Prummel; P M M Bossuyt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  "Important difference" for interpreting health-related quality of life outcome measures: important to whom?

Authors:  Jackson S Y Wu
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2011-12-21       Impact factor: 3.603

3.  Minimal detectable change for gait variables collected during treadmill walking in individuals post-stroke.

Authors:  Trisha M Kesar; Stuart A Binder-Macleod; Gregory E Hicks; Darcy S Reisman
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2010-12-22       Impact factor: 2.840

4.  Beyond return to work: testing a measure of at-work disability in workers with musculoskeletal pain.

Authors:  Dorcas E Beaton; Carol A Kennedy
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Quantifying responsiveness of quality of life measures without an external criterion.

Authors:  Guang Yong Zou
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  A longitudinal comparison of 5 preference-weighted health state classification systems in persons with intervertebral disk herniation.

Authors:  Christine M McDonough; Tor D Tosteson; Anna N A Tosteson; Alan M Jette; Margaret R Grove; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-11-22       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Marker states and a health state prompt provide modest improvements in the reliability and validity of the standard gamble and rating scale in prostate cancer patients.

Authors:  Karen E Bremner; George Tomlinson; Murray D Krahn
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-10-03       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Evaluation of cross-sectional and longitudinal construct validity of two vision-related quality of life questionnaires: the LVQOL and VCM1.

Authors:  M R de Boer; C B Terwee; H C W de Vet; A C Moll; H J M Völker-Dieben; G H M B van Rens
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Validation of the French version of the Bournemouth Questionnaire.

Authors:  Johanne Martel; Claude Dugas; D Lafond; M Descarreaux
Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc       Date:  2009

10.  The Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive-Plus (ADAS-Cog-Plus): an expansion of the ADAS-Cog to improve responsiveness in MCI.

Authors:  Jeannine Skinner; Janessa O Carvalho; Guy G Potter; April Thames; Elizabeth Zelinski; Paul K Crane; Laura E Gibbons
Journal:  Brain Imaging Behav       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.978

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.