Literature DB >> 1460470

Measuring health status: what are the necessary measurement properties?

G H Guyatt1, B Kirshner, R Jaeschke.   

Abstract

The different measurement properties necessary for instruments whose goal is to detect differences between subjects at a single point in time (discriminative instruments) and those whose goal is to detect longitudinal change within subjects (evaluative instruments) is becoming increasingly recognized. Up to now, requirements for evaluative instruments have been presented as reproducibility, validity, and responsiveness (i.e. the ability to detect change over time). An alternative conceptualization would characterize any instrument as requiring two crucial measurement properties. One is validity, the other a high ratio of signal to noise. For discriminative instruments, the signal to noise ratio can be summarized in a reliability coefficient; for evaluative instruments, in a responsiveness index or coefficient. This formulation can simplify and clarify the understanding and teaching of issues in health status measurement.

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1460470     DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90194-r

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


  109 in total

1.  A comparison of responsiveness indices in multiple sclerosis patients.

Authors:  L E Pfennings; H M van der Ploeg; L Cohen; C H Polman
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Reassessing quality-of-life instruments in the evaluation of new drugs.

Authors:  G H Guyatt; R J Jaeschke
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  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

4.  Validation of the English version of the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire in a multi-ethnic Asian population.

Authors:  Wan C Tan; Justina W L Tan; Eric W L Wee; Matthew Niti; Tze P Ng
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 5.  Quality-of-life considerations in the treatment of asthma.

Authors:  E F Juniper
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Repeating administration of Epworth Sleepiness Scale is clinically useful.

Authors:  Denis Martinez; Tiago Cataldo Breitenbach; Magali Santos Lumertz; Denise Lerias Alcântara; Neusa Sicca da Rocha; Cristiane Maria Cassol; Maria do Carmo Sfreddo Lenz
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2010-11-10       Impact factor: 2.816

7.  Scales for the evaluation of end-of-life care in advanced dementia: sensitivity to change.

Authors:  Dan K Kiely; Michele L Shaffer; Susan L Mitchell
Journal:  Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord       Date:  2012 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.703

Review 8.  Patient-reported outcomes (PRO's) in glaucoma: a systematic review.

Authors:  S Vandenbroeck; S De Geest; T Zeyen; I Stalmans; F Dobbels
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2011-03-18       Impact factor: 3.775

9.  Validation of French version of the Scleroderma Health Assessment Questionnaire (SSc HAQ).

Authors:  C Georges; O Chassany; L Mouthon; K Tiev; C Toledano; O Meyer; Z Marjanovic; C Heneggar; T Papo; B Crickx; D Sereni; J Cabane; D Farge
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2004-06-23       Impact factor: 2.980

10.  Violence victims' perception of functioning and well-being: a survey from an urban public hospital walk-in clinic.

Authors:  T Conway; T C Hu; C Warshaw; P Kim; A Bullon
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 1.798

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.