Paul W Stratford1, Daniel L Riddle2. 1. School of Rehabilitation Science and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. 2. Departments of Physical Therapy and Orthopaedic Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va., USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether a difference exists between patients' self-ratings of amount of change and their self-ratings of importance of change. METHODS: Eighty-eight patients receiving treatment of low-back pain completed two global rating of change (GRC) scales 4 to 6 weeks after their initial assessments. The scales were similar in format, differing only in that one asked respondents about the amount of change and the other about the importance of change. RESULTS: Our analysis was restricted to 86 patients who reported improvement or no change. The chance-corrected agreement between patients' self-ratings of amount of change and their self-ratings of importance of change was low (κ=0.35; 95% CI, 0.23-0.48). Of 47 disagreements, 44 reported a greater importance of change than amount of change and 3 reported a greater amount of change than importance of change. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing the amount of change is not the same as assessing the importance of change. When the goal is to estimate important change, the reference standard should direct patients to judge the importance of the change.
PURPOSE: To determine whether a difference exists between patients' self-ratings of amount of change and their self-ratings of importance of change. METHODS: Eighty-eight patients receiving treatment of low-back pain completed two global rating of change (GRC) scales 4 to 6 weeks after their initial assessments. The scales were similar in format, differing only in that one asked respondents about the amount of change and the other about the importance of change. RESULTS: Our analysis was restricted to 86 patients who reported improvement or no change. The chance-corrected agreement between patients' self-ratings of amount of change and their self-ratings of importance of change was low (κ=0.35; 95% CI, 0.23-0.48). Of 47 disagreements, 44 reported a greater importance of change than amount of change and 3 reported a greater amount of change than importance of change. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing the amount of change is not the same as assessing the importance of change. When the goal is to estimate important change, the reference standard should direct patients to judge the importance of the change.
Entities:
Keywords:
back pain; evaluation research; outcome assessment; validation studies
Authors: Alexis A Wright; Chad E Cook; G David Baxter; John D Dockerty; J Haxby Abbott Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2011-02-18 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Leo D Roorda; Dirk L Knol; Michiel R De Boer; Henrica C W De Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-02-20 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Jill Dawson; Helen Doll; Irene Boller; Ray Fitzpatrick; Christopher Little; Jonathan Rees; Andrew Carr Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-10-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Brian A Young; Michael J Walker; Joseph B Strunce; Robert E Boyles; Julie M Whitman; John D Childs Journal: Spine J Date: 2009-07-25 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: J A Kopec; J M Esdaile; M Abrahamowicz; L Abenhaim; S Wood-Dauphinee; D L Lamping; J I Williams Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 1995-02-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Carlota Las Hayas; Jose M Quintana; Jesus A Padierna; Amaia Bilbao; Pedro Muñoz; E Francis Cook Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2007-01-22 Impact factor: 6.437