Literature DB >> 1301117

Responsiveness to change: an aspect of validity, not a separate dimension.

R D Hays1, D Hadorn.   

Abstract

Assessment of health-related quality of life is accelerating in naturalistic observational studies, clinical trials, and clinical practice. Some researchers have argued that the ability of a quality of life instrument to detect clinically important changes over time, "responsiveness," is a distinct psychometric property from the measure's reliability and validity. We discuss the important implications of this argument and counter that responsiveness is actually one indication of a measure's validity.

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1301117     DOI: 10.1007/bf00435438

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  10 in total

Review 1.  The measurement of health status in clinical practice.

Authors:  E C Nelson; D M Berwick
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 2.  Health status assessment for elderly patients. Report of the Society of General Internal Medicine Task Force on Health Assessment.

Authors:  L V Rubenstein; D R Calkins; S Greenfield; A M Jette; R F Meenan; M A Nevins; L Z Rubenstein; J H Wasson; M E Williams
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 5.562

3.  Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments.

Authors:  G Guyatt; S Walter; G Norman
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

4.  The MOS short-form general health survey. Reliability and validity in a patient population.

Authors:  A L Stewart; R D Hays; J E Ware
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  A re-analysis of the reliability of psychiatric diagnosis.

Authors:  R L Spitzer; J L Fleiss
Journal:  Br J Psychiatry       Date:  1974-10       Impact factor: 9.319

6.  Developing multiattribute health indexes.

Authors:  M H Boyle; G W Torrance
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Physical and emotional function of primary care patients: scientific requirements for the measurement of functional health status.

Authors:  L W Chambers
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1983-06-24       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Measuring health changes among severely ill patients. The floor phenomenon.

Authors:  A B Bindman; D Keane; N Lurie
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  The functioning and well-being of depressed patients. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study.

Authors:  K B Wells; A Stewart; R D Hays; M A Burnam; W Rogers; M Daniels; S Berry; S Greenfield; J Ware
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1989-08-18       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification.

Authors:  G H Guyatt; R A Deyo; M Charlson; M N Levine; A Mitchell
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 6.437

  10 in total
  69 in total

1.  The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it?

Authors:  R D Hays; J M Woolley
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments.

Authors:  S J Coons; S Rao; D L Keininger; R D Hays
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Responsiveness of the EuroQol in breast cancer patients undergoing high dose chemotherapy.

Authors:  B Conner-Spady; C Cumming; J M Nabholtz; P Jacobs; D Stewart
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  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

5.  Prospective versus retrospective measurement of change in health status: a community based study in Geneva, Switzerland.

Authors:  T V Perneger; J F Etter; A Rougemont
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 3.710

6.  St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire has longitudinal construct validity in lymphangioleiomyomatosis.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Swigris; Hye-Seung Lee; Marsha Cohen; Yoshikazu Inoue; Joel Moss; Lianne G Singer; Lisa R Young; Francis X McCormack
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 9.410

Review 7.  Measuring response in the gastrointestinal tract in systemic sclerosis.

Authors:  Dinesh Khanna; Vivek Nagaraja; Heather Gladue; William Chey; Mark Pimentel; Tracy Frech
Journal:  Curr Opin Rheumatol       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 5.006

8.  Responsiveness of 8 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures in a large, community-based cancer study cohort.

Authors:  Roxanne E Jensen; Carol M Moinpour; Arnold L Potosky; Tania Lobo; Elizabeth A Hahn; Ron D Hays; David Cella; Ashley Wilder Smith; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Theresa H M Keegan; Lisa E Paddock; Antoinette M Stroup; David T Eton
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-10-03       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Responsiveness and minimally important difference for the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) 20-item physical functioning short form in a prospective observational study of rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Ron D Hays; Karen L Spritzer; James F Fries; Eswar Krishnan
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2013-10-04       Impact factor: 19.103

10.  Comparative responsiveness and minimal change for the Oxford Elbow Score following surgery.

Authors:  Jill Dawson; Helen Doll; Irene Boller; Ray Fitzpatrick; Christopher Little; Jonathan Rees; Andrew Carr
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-10-29       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.