OBJECTIVE: To identify response shift using two structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Hypertensive patients (n = 909) with coronary artery disease (CAD) completed SF-36 surveys at both baseline and 1-year follow-up. Response shift was identified using Oort and Schmitt SEM techniques. The type of response shift linked to changes in various parameters of the SEM measurement model is defined differently for both SEM approaches. Effect sizes were calculated for the impact of response shift on the change of SF-36 domain scores when using the Oort approach. RESULTS: Both Oort and Schmitt SEM approaches identified response shift only in the SF-36 physical functioning (PF) scale. The effect size of recalibration on the change of PF domain scores when using the Oort approach was -0.12. CONCLUSION: This study showed that hypertensive patients with CAD experienced a response shift over a 1-year period. Both the SEM approaches identified response shift (uniform recalibration using the Oort approach and recalibration using the Schmitt approach); however, both approaches use different parameters to define and test response shift. We found that either the variation in analytic methods or the sample used may influence the identification and type of response shift.
OBJECTIVE: To identify response shift using two structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:Hypertensivepatients (n = 909) with coronary artery disease (CAD) completed SF-36 surveys at both baseline and 1-year follow-up. Response shift was identified using Oort and Schmitt SEM techniques. The type of response shift linked to changes in various parameters of the SEM measurement model is defined differently for both SEM approaches. Effect sizes were calculated for the impact of response shift on the change of SF-36 domain scores when using the Oort approach. RESULTS: Both Oort and Schmitt SEM approaches identified response shift only in the SF-36 physical functioning (PF) scale. The effect size of recalibration on the change of PF domain scores when using the Oort approach was -0.12. CONCLUSION: This study showed that hypertensivepatients with CAD experienced a response shift over a 1-year period. Both the SEM approaches identified response shift (uniform recalibration using the Oort approach and recalibration using the Schmitt approach); however, both approaches use different parameters to define and test response shift. We found that either the variation in analytic methods or the sample used may influence the identification and type of response shift.
Authors: Carl J Pepine; Eileen M Handberg; Rhonda M Cooper-DeHoff; Ronald G Marks; Peter Kowey; Franz H Messerli; Giuseppe Mancia; José L Cangiano; David Garcia-Barreto; Matyas Keltai; Serap Erdine; Heather A Bristol; H Robert Kolb; George L Bakris; Jerome D Cohen; William W Parmley Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-12-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: C J Pepine; E Handberg-Thurmond; R G Marks; M Conlon; R Cooper-DeHoff; P Volkers; P Zellig Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Aram V Chobanian; George L Bakris; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Lee A Green; Joseph L Izzo; Daniel W Jones; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright; Edward J Roccella Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Carolyn E Schwartz; Sara Ahmed; Richard Sawatzky; Tolulope Sajobi; Nancy Mayo; Joel Finkelstein; Lisa Lix; Mathilde G E Verdam; Frans J Oort; Mirjam A G Sprangers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-04-10 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Margaret F Bevans; Sandra A Mitchell; John A Barrett; Michael R Bishop; Richard Childs; Daniel Fowler; Michael Krumlauf; Patricia Prince; Nonniekaye Shelburne; Leslie Wehrlen; Li Yang Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2013-12-17 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Pranav K Gandhi; L Douglas Ried; Carole L Kimberlin; Teresa L Kauf; I-Chan Huang Journal: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Pranav K Gandhi; Carolyn E Schwartz; Bryce B Reeve; Darren A DeWalt; Heather E Gross; I-Chan Huang Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-04-09 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Carolina Machuca; Mario V Vettore; Marta Krasuska; Sarah R Baker; Peter G Robinson Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Hao Chen; Lin Zhu; Rui Zhou; Panpan Liu; Xiaoyang Lu; Donald L Patrick; Todd C Edwards; Hongmei Wang Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Michael Hoerger; Maria Coletta; Silvia Sörensen; Benjamin P Chapman; Kim Kaukeinen; Xin Tu; Paul R Duberstein Journal: J Aging Res Date: 2016-04-07