Literature DB >> 17351823

The mathematical relationship among different forms of responsiveness coefficients.

G R Norman1, Kathleen W Wyrwich, Donald L Patrick.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little consensus exists regarding the most appropriate measure of responsiveness. While most indices are variants on Cohen's effect size, the mathematical relationships among these indices have not been elucidated. Consequently, the health-related quality of life (HRQL) literature contains many publications in which a variety of different indices are computed and differences among them noted. These differences are completely predictable when the underlying analytical form of each coefficient is explicated.
METHODS: In this paper, we begin with a mathematical analysis of the variance components underlying an observed change score. From this, we determine analytically the relationships among the more commonly used indices of responsiveness.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on this analysis, we conclude that Cohen's effect size and the Standardized Response Mean are the two most appropriate measures, as each provides unique information and each best captures an important relation between treatment effect and variability in response. However, the latter should be interpreted with caution, as under some circumstances, any measure based on variability in change scores can give misleading information. On this basis, we recommend that future analysis of responsiveness be restricted to the Cohen effect size to ensure interpretability and comparability with treatment effects in other domains.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17351823     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-007-9180-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   3.440


  23 in total

Review 1.  Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods.

Authors:  G Wells; D Beaton; B Shea; M Boers; L Simon; V Strand; P Brooks; P Tugwell
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.666

2.  Using the standard error of measurement to identify important changes on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire.

Authors:  Kathleen W Wyrwich; William M Tierney; Fredric D Wolinsky
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 3.  Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation.

Authors:  Geoffrey R Norman; Jeff A Sloan; Kathleen W Wyrwich
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 2.983

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.  Assessing the responsiveness of a quality-of-life instrument and the measurement of symptom severity in essential hypertension.

Authors:  M C Reilly; A S Zbrozek
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  The responsiveness of disease-specific and generic health measures to changes in the severity of asthma among adults.

Authors:  J E Ware; J P Kemp; D A Buchner; A E Singer; K B Nolop; T F Goss
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance.

Authors:  R A Deyo; R M Centor
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1986

8.  Improved discriminative and evaluative capability of a refined version of Skindex, a quality-of-life instrument for patients with skin diseases.

Authors:  M M Chren; R J Lasek; S A Flocke; S J Zyzanski
Journal:  Arch Dermatol       Date:  1997-11

9.  Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke.

Authors:  A Simon Pickard; Jeffrey A Johnson; David H Feeny
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Sensitivity of a health status measure to short-term clinical changes in arthritis.

Authors:  J J Anderson; H E Firschein; R F Meenan
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  1989-07
View more
  48 in total

1.  CORR Insights®: What is the Responsiveness and Respondent Burden of the New Knee Society Score?

Authors:  Mitchell Maltenfort
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-04-18       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Comparison of Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Capabilities of Upper Extremity Test (CUE-T) and the Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility and Prehension (GRASSP).

Authors:  Ralph J Marino; Rebecca Sinko; Anne Bryden; Deborah Backus; David Chen; Gregory A Nemunaitis; Benjamin E Leiby
Journal:  Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil       Date:  2018

3.  The Oxford Ankle Foot Questionnaire for children: responsiveness and longitudinal validity.

Authors:  Christopher Morris; Helen Doll; Neville Davies; Andrew Wainwright; Tim Theologis; Keith Willett; Ray Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-11-03       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Concurrent comparison of the measurement properties of generic and disease-specific questionnaires in obese inpatients.

Authors:  A Sartorio; F Agosti; A De Col; G Castelnuovo; G M Manzoni; E Molinari; F M Impellizzeri
Journal:  J Endocrinol Invest       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 4.256

5.  The comparative responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D to change in patients with inflammatory arthritis.

Authors:  M J Harrison; L M Davies; N J Bansback; M J McCoy; S M M Verstappen; K Watson; D P M Symmons
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-09-24       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Validation of a new questionnaire with generic and disease-specific qualities: the McGill COPD Quality of Life Questionnaire.

Authors:  Smita Pakhale; Sharon Wood-Dauphinee; Adriana Spahija; Jean-Paul Collet; Francois Maltais; Sarah Bernard; Marc Baltzan; Michel Rouleau; Jean Bourbeau
Journal:  Can Respir J       Date:  2012 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.409

7.  Scientific imperatives, clinical implications, and theoretical underpinnings for the investigation of the relationship between genetic variables and patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes.

Authors:  Mirjam A G Sprangers; Jeff A Sloan; Andrea Barsevick; Cynthia Chauhan; Amylou C Dueck; Hein Raat; Quiling Shi; Cornelis J F Van Noorden
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-10-14       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Using Chinese version of MYMOP in Chinese medicine evaluation: validity, responsiveness and minimally important change.

Authors:  Vincent C H Chung; Vivian C W Wong; Chun Hong Lau; Henny Hui; Tat Hing Lam; Lin Xiao Zhong; Samuel Y S Wong; Sian M Griffiths
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2010-09-30       Impact factor: 3.186

9.  Responsiveness of the Eating Disorders Quality of Life Scale (EDQLS) in a longitudinal multi-site sample.

Authors:  Carol E Adair; Gisele C Marcoux; Theanna F Bischoff; Brian S Cram; Carol J Ewashen; Jorge Pinzon; Joanne L Gusella; Josie Geller; Yvette Scattolon; Patricia Fergusson; Lisa Styles; Krista E Brown
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2010-08-11       Impact factor: 3.186

10.  Improved treatment satisfaction and weight-related quality of life with exenatide once weekly or twice daily.

Authors:  J H Best; K S Boye; R R Rubin; D Cao; T H Kim; M Peyrot
Journal:  Diabet Med       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 4.359

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.