Literature DB >> 35670017

Revisiting the Concept of Minimal Detectable Change for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

Bryant A Seamon1,2,3, Steven A Kautz1,2, Mark G Bowden1,2,3, Craig A Velozo2,4.   

Abstract

Interpreting change is a requisite component of clinical decision making for physical therapists. Physical therapists often interpret change using minimal detectable change (MDC) values. Current MDC formulas are informed by classical test theory and calculated with group-level error data. This approach assumes that measurement error is the same across a measure's scale and confines the MDC value to the sample characteristics of the study. Alternatively, an item response theory (IRT) approach calculates separate estimates of measurement error for different locations on a measure's scale. This generates a conditional measurement error for someone with a low, middle, or high score. Error estimates at the measure-level can then be used to determine a conditional MDC (cMDC) value for individual patients based on their unique pre- and post-score combination. cMDC values can supply clinicians with a means for using individual score data to interpret change scores while providing a personalized approach that should lower the threshold for change compared with the MDC and enhance the precision of care decisions by preventing misclassification of patients. The purpose of this Perspective is to present how IRT can address the limitations of MDCs for informing clinical practice. This Perspective demonstrates how cMDC values can be generated from item-level psychometrics derived from an IRT model using the patient-reported Activities-specific Balance Scale (ABC) commonly used in stroke rehabilitation and also illustrates how the cMDC compares to the MDC when accounting for changes in measurement error across a scale. Theoretical patient examples highlight how reliance on the MDC value can result in misclassification of patient change and how cMDC values can help prevent this from occurring. This personalized approach for interpreting change can be used by physical therapists to enhance the precision of care decisions.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Physical Therapy Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Balance; Measurement: Applied; Stroke

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35670017      PMCID: PMC9361333          DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzac068

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Ther        ISSN: 0031-9023


  26 in total

1.  On the Theory of Scales of Measurement.

Authors:  S S Stevens
Journal:  Science       Date:  1946-06-07       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Measures of Clinical Meaningfulness and Important Differences.

Authors:  John P Collins
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2019-11-25

3.  Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire.

Authors:  P W Stratford; J Binkley; P Solomon; E Finch; C Gill; J Moreland
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  1996-04

4.  The Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale.

Authors:  L E Powell; A M Myers
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 6.053

5.  Effect of Early Surgery vs Physical Therapy on Knee Function Among Patients With Nonobstructive Meniscal Tears: The ESCAPE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Victor A van de Graaf; Julia C A Noorduyn; Nienke W Willigenburg; Ise K Butter; Arthur de Gast; Ben W Mol; Daniel B F Saris; Jos W R Twisk; Rudolf W Poolman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2018-10-02       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Minimal important difference thresholds and the standard error of measurement: is there a connection?

Authors:  Kathleen W Wyrwich
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 1.051

7.  A parametric analysis of ordinal quality-of-life data can lead to erroneous results.

Authors:  Elke Kahler; Anja Rogausch; Edgar Brunner; Wolfgang Himmel
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-10-22       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  A Standard Method for Determining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Rehabilitation Measures.

Authors:  James F Malec; Jessica M Ketchum
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2020-01-15       Impact factor: 3.966

9.  The McNemar Change Index worked better than the Minimal Detectable Change in demonstrating the change at a single subject level.

Authors:  Antonio Caronni; Michela Picardi; Giulia Gilardone; Massimo Corbo
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2020-11-24       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  Application of Rasch analysis to examine psychometric aspects of the activities-specific balance confidence scale when used in a new cultural context.

Authors:  Solveig A Arnadottir; Lillemor Lundin-Olsson; Elin D Gunnarsdottir; Anne G Fisher
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 3.966

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.