Literature DB >> 2535599

Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference.

C Merbitz1, J Morris, J C Grip.   

Abstract

Fundamental deficiencies in the information provided by an ordinal scale constrain the logical inferences that can be drawn; inferences about progress in treatment are particularly vulnerable. Ignoring or denying the limitations of scale information will have serious practical and economic consequences. Currently, there is a high demand for functional assessment scales within the rehabilitation community. It is hoped that such scales will satisfy the very real need for measures of function which reflect the impact of treatment on patient progress. Unfortunately, some commonly used evaluation instruments are not well suited to this task. The underlying rationale for clinical decision-making based on these scales is examined.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2535599

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil        ISSN: 0003-9993            Impact factor:   3.966


  58 in total

1.  Clinician's Commentary on Dang et al.(1).

Authors:  Nancy E Mayo
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2011-08-10       Impact factor: 1.037

2.  A method to analyse observer disagreement in visual grading studies: example of assessed image quality in paediatric cerebral multidetector CT images.

Authors:  K Ledenius; E Svensson; F Stålhammar; L-M Wiklund; A Thilander-Klang
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-03-24       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Measurement qualities of a self-report and therapist-scored functional capacity instrument based on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.

Authors:  Craig A Velozo; Bongsam Choi; Sheryl Eckberg Zylstra; Rochelle Santopoalo
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2006-03

4.  A method to provide a more efficient and reliable measure of self-report physical work capacity for patients with spinal pain.

Authors:  Leonard Matheson; John Mayer; Vert Mooney; Andrew Sarkin; Theodore Dreisinger; Joe Verna; Scott Leggett
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2007-11-20

5.  A clinical nutrition course to improve pharmacy students' skills and confidence in counseling patients.

Authors:  Linda Chang; Nicholas G Popovich; Cherdsak Iramaneerat; Everett V Smith; M Nawal Lutfiyya
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2008-06-15       Impact factor: 2.047

6.  Ethical behaviour in clinical practice: a multidimensional Rasch analysis from a survey of primary health care professionals of Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain).

Authors:  Luis González-de Paz; Belchin Kostov; Jose A López-Pina; Adelaida Zabalegui-Yárnoz; M Dolores Navarro-Rubio; Antoni Sisó-Almirall
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-05-25       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Should the MHAQ ever be used?

Authors:  M A Serrano; J Beltrán Fabregat; J Olmedo Garzón
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 19.103

8.  The visual analogue WOMAC 3.0 scale--internal validity and responsiveness of the VAS version.

Authors:  Paula Kersten; Peter J White; Alan Tennant
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-04-30       Impact factor: 2.362

9.  Interpretation of response categories in patient-reported rating scales: a controlled study among people with Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  Ida Knutsson; Helena Rydström; Jan Reimer; Per Nyberg; Peter Hagell
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2010-06-24       Impact factor: 3.186

10.  A rasch analysis of the Manchester foot pain and disability index.

Authors:  Sara Muller; Edward Roddy
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2009-10-30       Impact factor: 2.303

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.