Diane N Resnick1. 1. Assistant Professor, Clinical Education Coordinator, University Health Center Pasadena, Southern California University of Health Sciences.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subjective outcome assessment instruments may be used to determine whether changes occur as a result of a particular treatment intervention. Since 1991, 11 outcome assessment instruments either specific to or validated for use with cervical spine pathologies have been developed and their psychometric properties critically assessed. Though a systematic review of this subject was published in 2002, it included an analysis of only 5 measures available at that time. OBJECTIVE: To present a description of each of the 11 measures and briefly compare their psychometric properties, reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change. METHODS: Computer-based searches of MEDLINE and CINAHL were performed to capture all data relevant to the eleven outcome assessment tools currently available. RESULTS: Data regarding descriptions, reliability and validity of 11 outcome measures were found and collated. CONCLUSION: The choice of which outcome measurement to use becomes a matter of preference based on the particular patient population each clinician treats, the ease of use for the patient and ease of scoring for the clinician, and the domains that are most relevant to a particular patient.
BACKGROUND: Subjective outcome assessment instruments may be used to determine whether changes occur as a result of a particular treatment intervention. Since 1991, 11 outcome assessment instruments either specific to or validated for use with cervical spine pathologies have been developed and their psychometric properties critically assessed. Though a systematic review of this subject was published in 2002, it included an analysis of only 5 measures available at that time. OBJECTIVE: To present a description of each of the 11 measures and briefly compare their psychometric properties, reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change. METHODS: Computer-based searches of MEDLINE and CINAHL were performed to capture all data relevant to the eleven outcome assessment tools currently available. RESULTS: Data regarding descriptions, reliability and validity of 11 outcome measures were found and collated. CONCLUSION: The choice of which outcome measurement to use becomes a matter of preference based on the particular patient population each clinician treats, the ease of use for the patient and ease of scoring for the clinician, and the domains that are most relevant to a particular patient.
Authors: T González; A Balsa; J Sáinz de Murieta; E Zamorano; I González; E Martin-Mola Journal: Clin Exp Rheumatol Date: 2001 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.473
Authors: Hamid Reza Mokhtarinia; Azadeh Hosseini; Azam Maleki-Ghahfarokhi; Charles Philip Gabel; Majid Zohrabi Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 3.186