OBJECTIVES: To establish a link between the minimal important difference (MID) and the standard error of measurement (SEM) for all responsive dimensions of the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). METHODS: Secondary data analysis of baseline and follow-up interview data from 198 outpatients with asthma enrolled in a randomized controlled trial and receiving care at a major urban academic medical center's general medicine clinics. Domain statistics for baseline and follow-up interviews were examined for the AQLQ. The baseline SEM values were compared with established AQLQ MID standards using weighted kappa values. RESULTS: One SEM identified the MID in responsive AQLQ dimensions. Weighted kappa values (0.88-0.93) validated excellent agreement between these two criteria. CONCLUSION: This is the third study to support using one SEM to identify important individual change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures. However, refinement of the process for determining a measure's clinically meaningful differences is still needed to secure a link between the SEM and the identification of relevant HRQoL change over time.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To establish a link between the minimal important difference (MID) and the standard error of measurement (SEM) for all responsive dimensions of the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). METHODS: Secondary data analysis of baseline and follow-up interview data from 198 outpatients with asthma enrolled in a randomized controlled trial and receiving care at a major urban academic medical center's general medicine clinics. Domain statistics for baseline and follow-up interviews were examined for the AQLQ. The baseline SEM values were compared with established AQLQ MID standards using weighted kappa values. RESULTS: One SEM identified the MID in responsive AQLQ dimensions. Weighted kappa values (0.88-0.93) validated excellent agreement between these two criteria. CONCLUSION: This is the third study to support using one SEM to identify important individual change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures. However, refinement of the process for determining a measure's clinically meaningful differences is still needed to secure a link between the SEM and the identification of relevant HRQoL change over time.
Authors: C J McDonald; J M Overhage; W M Tierney; P R Dexter; D K Martin; J G Suico; A Zafar; G Schadow; L Blevins; T Glazener; J Meeks-Johnson; L Lemmon; J Warvel; B Porterfield; J Warvel; P Cassidy; D Lindbergh; A Belsito; M Tucker; B Williams; C Wodniak Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Kathleen W Wyrwich; Monika Bullinger; Neil Aaronson; Ron D Hays; Donald L Patrick; Tara Symonds Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Keisha Y Dyer; Yan Xu; Linda Brubaker; Ingrid Nygaard; Alayne Markland; David Rahn; Toby C Chai; Ann Stoddard; Emily Lukacz Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2011-05-11 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Peter C Minneci; Jason P Sulkowski; Kristine M Nacion; Justin B Mahida; Jennifer N Cooper; R Lawrence Moss; Katherine J Deans Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2014-04-13 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: C H Chatham; K I Taylor; T Charman; X Liogier D'ardhuy; E Eule; A Fedele; A Y Hardan; E Loth; L Murtagh; M Del Valle Rubido; A San Jose Caceres; J Sevigny; L Sikich; L Snyder; J E Tillmann; P E Ventola; K L Walton-Bowen; P P Wang; T Willgoss; F Bolognani Journal: Autism Res Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 5.216
Authors: Henrica C W de Vet; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Caroline B Terwee; Nicole van der Roer; Dirk L Knol; Heleen Beckerman; Maarten Boers; Lex M Bouter Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2006-10-11 Impact factor: 4.147