OBJECTIVE: To estimate the minimal important change (MIC) and the minimal detectable change (MDC) of the Katz-activities of daily living (ADL) index score and the Lawton instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) scale. DESIGN: Data from a cluster-randomized clinical trial and a cohort study. SETTING: General practices in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 3184 trial participants and 51 participants of the cohort study with a mean age of 80.1 (SD 6.4) years. MEASUREMENTS: At baseline and after 6 months, the Katz-ADL index score (0-6 points), the Lawton IADL scale (0-7 points), and self-perceived decline in (I)ADL were assessed using a self-reporting questionnaire. MIC was assessed using anchor-based methods: the (relative) mean change score; and using distributional methods: the effect size (ES), the standard error of measurement (SEM), and 0.5 SD. The MDC was estimated using SEM, based on a test-retest study (2-week interval) and on the anchor-based method. RESULTS: Anchor-based MICs of the Katz-ADL index score were 0.47 points, while distributional MICs ranged from 0.18 to 0.47 points. Similarly, anchor-based MICs of the Lawton IADL scale were between 0.31 and 0.54 points and distributional MICs ranged from 0.31 to 0.77 points. The MDC varies by sample size. For the MIC to exceed the MDC at least 482 patients are needed. CONCLUSION: The MIC of both the Katz-ADL index and the Lawton IADL scale lie around half a point. The certainty of this conclusion is reduced by the variation across calculational methods.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the minimal important change (MIC) and the minimal detectable change (MDC) of the Katz-activities of daily living (ADL) index score and the Lawton instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) scale. DESIGN: Data from a cluster-randomized clinical trial and a cohort study. SETTING: General practices in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 3184 trial participants and 51 participants of the cohort study with a mean age of 80.1 (SD 6.4) years. MEASUREMENTS: At baseline and after 6 months, the Katz-ADL index score (0-6 points), the Lawton IADL scale (0-7 points), and self-perceived decline in (I)ADL were assessed using a self-reporting questionnaire. MIC was assessed using anchor-based methods: the (relative) mean change score; and using distributional methods: the effect size (ES), the standard error of measurement (SEM), and 0.5 SD. The MDC was estimated using SEM, based on a test-retest study (2-week interval) and on the anchor-based method. RESULTS: Anchor-based MICs of the Katz-ADL index score were 0.47 points, while distributional MICs ranged from 0.18 to 0.47 points. Similarly, anchor-based MICs of the Lawton IADL scale were between 0.31 and 0.54 points and distributional MICs ranged from 0.31 to 0.77 points. The MDC varies by sample size. For the MIC to exceed the MDC at least 482 patients are needed. CONCLUSION: The MIC of both the Katz-ADL index and the Lawton IADL scale lie around half a point. The certainty of this conclusion is reduced by the variation across calculational methods.
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-08-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: N K Aaronson; M Muller; P D Cohen; M L Essink-Bot; M Fekkes; R Sanderman; M A Sprangers; A te Velde; E Verrips Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: W Laan; N P A Zuithoff; I Drubbel; N Bleijenberg; M E Numans; N J de Wit; M J Schuurmans Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Leo D Roorda; Joost Dekker; Sita M Bierma-Zeinstra; George Peat; Kelvin P Jordan; Peter Croft; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-11-18 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: M Askari; S Eslami; M van Rijn; S Medlock; E P Moll van Charante; N van der Velde; S E de Rooij; A Abu-Hanna Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Li-Wen Huang; Ying Sheng; Charalambos Andreadis; Aaron C Logan; Gabriel N Mannis; Catherine C Smith; Karin M L Gaensler; Thomas G Martin; Lloyd E Damon; Chiung-Yu Huang; Rebecca L Olin Journal: Transplant Cell Ther Date: 2022-03-03
Authors: Naoko Muramatsu; Lijuan Yin; Michael L Berbaum; David X Marquez; Surrey M Walton; Maria Caceres; Katya Y Cruz Madrid; Joseph P Zanoni Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Safiyyah M Okoye; Sarah L Szanton; Nancy A Perrin; Manka Nkimbeng; Jennifer A Schrack; Hae-Ra Han; Casandra Nyhuis; Sarah Wanigatunga; Adam P Spira Journal: Sleep Health Date: 2021-10-01
Authors: C G M Meskers; E M Reijnierse; S T Numans; R C Kruizinga; V D Pierik; J M van Ancum; M Slee-Valentijn; K Scheerman; S Verlaan; A B Maier Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Yara van Holstein; Floor J van Deudekom; Stella Trompet; Iris Postmus; Anna Uit den Boogaard; Marjan J T van der Elst; Nienke A de Glas; Diana van Heemst; Geert Labots; Mariëtte Altena; Marije Slingerland; Gerrit Jan Liefers; Frederiek van den Bos; Jessica M van der Bol; Gerard J Blauw; Johanneke E A Portielje; Simon P Mooijaart Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Donna Bosch-Lenders; Jesse Jansen; Henri E J H Jelle Stoffers; Bjorn Winkens; Karin Aretz; Mascha Twellaar; Jos M G A Schols; Paul-Hugo M van der Kuy; J André Knottnerus; Marjan van den Akker Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: S Le Gentil; S Prampart; M Karakachoff; M L Bureau; G Chapelet; L De Decker; A Rouaud; A-S Boureau Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2022 Impact factor: 5.285