PURPOSE: To establish clinically relevant classifications of health outcome scores for four Neuro-QOL measures (lower extremity function, upper extremity function, fatigue, and sleep disturbance). METHODS: We employed a modified educational standard-setting methodology to identify cut-scores for symptom severity. Clinical vignettes were developed to represent graduated levels of symptom severity. A clinician panel and a panel of persons with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) were recruited, and, in separate, 1-day meetings, the panelists identified adjacent vignettes they judged to represent the threshold between two levels of severity for a given domain (e.g., threshold between a vignette that indicated "no problems" with sleep and the adjacent one that represented "mild problems" with sleep). Working independently, each panel (PwMS and clinicians) reached consensus on its recommended thresholds for each of the four targeted measures. Cut-scores were defined as the mean location for each pair of threshold vignettes. RESULTS: PwMS and clinician panels derived identical thresholds for severity levels of lower extremity function and sleep disturbance, but slightly different ones for upper extremity function and fatigue. In every case of divergence, PwMS set higher thresholds for more severe classifications of symptoms (by 0.5 SDs) than did clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: The modified bookmarking method is effective for defining thresholds for symptom severity based on self-reported outcome scores and consensus judgments. Derived cut-scores and severity levels provide an interpretative context for Neuro-QOL scores. Future studies should explore whether these findings can be replicated and evaluate the validity of the classifications compared to external criteria.
PURPOSE: To establish clinically relevant classifications of health outcome scores for four Neuro-QOL measures (lower extremity function, upper extremity function, fatigue, and sleep disturbance). METHODS: We employed a modified educational standard-setting methodology to identify cut-scores for symptom severity. Clinical vignettes were developed to represent graduated levels of symptom severity. A clinician panel and a panel of persons with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) were recruited, and, in separate, 1-day meetings, the panelists identified adjacent vignettes they judged to represent the threshold between two levels of severity for a given domain (e.g., threshold between a vignette that indicated "no problems" with sleep and the adjacent one that represented "mild problems" with sleep). Working independently, each panel (PwMS and clinicians) reached consensus on its recommended thresholds for each of the four targeted measures. Cut-scores were defined as the mean location for each pair of threshold vignettes. RESULTS: PwMS and clinician panels derived identical thresholds for severity levels of lower extremity function and sleep disturbance, but slightly different ones for upper extremity function and fatigue. In every case of divergence, PwMS set higher thresholds for more severe classifications of symptoms (by 0.5 SDs) than did clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: The modified bookmarking method is effective for defining thresholds for symptom severity based on self-reported outcome scores and consensus judgments. Derived cut-scores and severity levels provide an interpretative context for Neuro-QOL scores. Future studies should explore whether these findings can be replicated and evaluate the validity of the classifications compared to external criteria.
Authors: David Cella; Seung Choi; Sofia Garcia; Karon F Cook; Sarah Rosenbloom; Jin-Shei Lai; Donna Surges Tatum; Richard Gershon Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Barbara Given; Charles W Given; Alla Sikorskii; Sangchoon Jeon; Ruth McCorkle; Victoria Champion; David Decker Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2007-12-26 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: D Cella; J-S Lai; C J Nowinski; D Victorson; A Peterman; D Miller; F Bethoux; A Heinemann; S Rubin; J E Cavazos; A T Reder; R Sufit; T Simuni; G L Holmes; A Siderowf; V Wojna; R Bode; N McKinney; T Podrabsky; K Wortman; S Choi; R Gershon; N Rothrock; C Moy Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-05-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: David Cella; Robert J Motzer; Brian I Rini; Joseph C Cappelleri; Krishnan Ramaswamy; Subramanian Hariharan; Bhakti Arondekar; Andrew G Bushmakin Journal: Value Health Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Janel Hanmer; David Cella; David Feeny; Baruch Fischhoff; Ron D Hays; Rachel Hess; Paul A Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Mark Roberts; Joel Tsevat; Lan Yu Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Nan E Rothrock; Karon F Cook; Mary O'Connor; David Cella; Ashley Wilder Smith; Susan E Yount Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: David Thissen; Yang Liu; Brooke Magnus; Hally Quinn; Debbie S Gipson; Carlton Dampier; I-Chan Huang; Pamela S Hinds; David T Selewski; Bryce B Reeve; Heather E Gross; Darren A DeWalt Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Esi M Morgan; Constance A Mara; Bin Huang; Kimberly Barnett; Adam C Carle; Jennifer E Farrell; Karon F Cook Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-12-02 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Deborah M Miller; Francois Bethoux; David Victorson; Cindy J Nowinski; Sarah Buono; Jin-Shei Lai; Katy Wortman; James L Burns; Claudia Moy; David Cella Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2015-08-03 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Vivek Nagaraja; Constance Mara; Puja P Khanna; Rajaie Namas; Amber Young; David A Fox; Timothy Laing; William J McCune; Carol Dodge; Debra Rizzo; Maha Almackenzie; Dinesh Khanna Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-10-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Mary D Slavin; Colleen M Ryan; Jeffrey C Schneider; Amy Acton; Flor Amaya; Cayla Saret; Emily Ohrtman; Audrey Wolfe; Pengsheng Ni; Lewis E Kazis Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 1.845