PURPOSE: This paper brings a philosophical perspective to response shift research with the aim of raising new critical questions, clarifying some of the concepts employed, and providing a philosophical context within which to critically examine the assumptions that shape the field. METHODS: This critical analysis aims to reveal assumptions and clarify concepts and/or definitions that undergird methodological practice and theory. RESULTS: We bring attention to the distinction of weak and strong evaluations, and the implications and consequences for construct validity and for designing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). We then consider the epistemology of PROMs, suggesting that they are better suited to a social constructivist approach than a scientific realist one. Finally, we examine the relationship between disability and response shift, arguing that in at least some cases, response shifts should not be understood as 'measurement bias'. CONCLUSION: Our analysis reveals various concerns and further questions related to the role that substantive values play in the assessment of QoL. It also draws response shift into a wider arena, with broader issues of interpretation, self-evaluation, the meaning of the 'good life', and the status and legitimacy we accord to various scientific methods.
PURPOSE: This paper brings a philosophical perspective to response shift research with the aim of raising new critical questions, clarifying some of the concepts employed, and providing a philosophical context within which to critically examine the assumptions that shape the field. METHODS: This critical analysis aims to reveal assumptions and clarify concepts and/or definitions that undergird methodological practice and theory. RESULTS: We bring attention to the distinction of weak and strong evaluations, and the implications and consequences for construct validity and for designing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). We then consider the epistemology of PROMs, suggesting that they are better suited to a social constructivist approach than a scientific realist one. Finally, we examine the relationship between disability and response shift, arguing that in at least some cases, response shifts should not be understood as 'measurement bias'. CONCLUSION: Our analysis reveals various concerns and further questions related to the role that substantive values play in the assessment of QoL. It also draws response shift into a wider arena, with broader issues of interpretation, self-evaluation, the meaning of the 'good life', and the status and legitimacy we accord to various scientific methods.
Authors: Marjan J Westerman; Anne-Mei The; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Harry J M Groen; Gerrit van der Wal; Tony Hak Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Marjan J Westerman; Tony Hak; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Harry J M Groen; Gerrit van der Wal; Anne-Mei The Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Karen M van Leeuwen; Aaltje P D Jansen; Maaike E Muntinga; Judith E Bosmans; Marjan J Westerman; Maurits W van Tulder; Henriette E van der Horst Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-05-15 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Karen M van Leeuwen; Miriam S van Loon; Fenna A van Nes; Judith E Bosmans; Henrica C W de Vet; Johannes C F Ket; Guy A M Widdershoven; Raymond W J G Ostelo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 3.240