Literature DB >> 2010785

Estimating and testing an index of responsiveness and the relationship of the index to power.

M R Tuley1, C D Mulrow, C A McMahan.   

Abstract

Responsiveness has been proposed as a criterion, in addition to reliability and validity, to evaluate instruments that measure quality of life or functional status. The responsiveness index measures the change in a quality of life score due to a treatment relative to the variability of changes in that score within a stable control group. We derive the expected value, variance and distribution of the responsiveness index and give a large sample distribution for comparing the responsiveness of two different instruments. We also give the relationship between the responsiveness index and the power of a test of treatment effect.

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2010785     DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90080-s

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


  13 in total

1.  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

2.  Radiographic assessment of hip osteoarthritis progression: impact of reading procedures for longitudinal studies.

Authors:  G R Auleley; B Giraudeau; M Dougados; P Ravaud
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 19.103

3.  Quantifying responsiveness of quality of life measures without an external criterion.

Authors:  Guang Yong Zou
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  SF 36 health survey questionnaire: II. Responsiveness to changes in health status in four common clinical conditions.

Authors:  A M Garratt; D A Ruta; M I Abdalla; I T Russell
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1994-12

5.  The Spanish version of the Nottingham Health Profile: a review of adaptation and instrument characteristics.

Authors:  J Alonso; L Prieto; J M Antó
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Performance of an item response theory-based computer adaptive test in identifying functional decline.

Authors:  Andrea L Cheville; Kathleen J Yost; Dirk R Larson; Katiuska Dos Santos; Megan M O'Byrne; Megan T Chang; Terry M Therneau; Felix E Diehn; Ping Yang
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2012-02-25       Impact factor: 3.966

7.  Responsiveness of motion sensors to detect change in sedentary and physical activity behaviour.

Authors:  Ann M Swartz; Aubrianne E Rote; Young Ik Cho; Whitney A Welch; Scott J Strath
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2014-05-13       Impact factor: 13.800

8.  Sensitivity to change of the Neck Pain and Disability Scale.

Authors:  Eva Blozik; Wolfgang Himmel; Michael M Kochen; Christoph Herrmann-Lingen; Martin Scherer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-08-08       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  McMaster-Toronto Arthritis Patient Preference Disability Questionnaire sensitivity to change in low back pain: influence of shifts in priorities.

Authors:  Katherine Sanchez; Agathe Papelard; Christelle Nguyen; Imad Bendeddouche; Marylène Jousse; François Rannou; Michel Revel; Serge Poiraudeau
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-05-23       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research.

Authors:  Berrie Middel; Eric van Sonderen
Journal:  Int J Integr Care       Date:  2002-12-17       Impact factor: 5.120

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.