Literature DB >> 3818871

Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments.

G Guyatt, S Walter, G Norman.   

Abstract

Reliability, the ratio of the variance attributable to true differences among subjects to the total variance, is an important attribute of psychometric measures. However, it is possible for instruments to be reliable, but unresponsive to change; conversely, they may show poor reliability but excellent responsiveness. This is especially true for instruments in which items are tailored to the individual respondent. Therefore, we suggest a new index of responsiveness to assess the usefulness of instruments designed to measure change over time. This statistic, which relates the minimal clinically important difference to the variability in stable subjects, has direct sample size implications. Responsiveness should join reliability and validity as necessary requirements for instruments designed primarily to measure change over time.

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3818871     DOI: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chronic Dis        ISSN: 0021-9681


  391 in total

1.  Reliability, validity and responsiveness of two multiattribute utility measures in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Authors:  K Stavem
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  Subjective outcome measurement--a primer.

Authors:  M P Tully; J A Cantrill
Journal:  Pharm World Sci       Date:  1999-06

3.  A comparison of responsiveness indices in multiple sclerosis patients.

Authors:  L E Pfennings; H M van der Ploeg; L Cohen; C H Polman
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Comparison of measures to assess change in diagnostic performance due to a decision support system.

Authors:  R S Maisiak; E S Berner
Journal:  Proc AMIA Symp       Date:  2000

5.  Symptoms associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease: development of a questionnaire for use in clinical trials.

Authors:  M Rothman; C Farup; W Stewart; L Helbers; J Zeldis
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 3.199

6.  Oncologists' use of quality of life information: results of a survey of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group physicians.

Authors:  A Bezjak; P Ng; R Skeel; A D Depetrillo; R Comis; K M Taylor
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Long term effects of intensity of upper and lower limb training after stroke: a randomised trial.

Authors:  G Kwakkel; B J Kollen; R C Wagenaar
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 10.154

Review 8.  Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II.

Authors:  G Samsa; D Edelman; M L Rothman; G R Williams; J Lipscomb; D Matchar
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation.

Authors:  C B Terwee; F W Dekker; W M Wiersinga; M F Prummel; P M M Bossuyt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Prospective versus retrospective measurement of change in health status: a community based study in Geneva, Switzerland.

Authors:  T V Perneger; J F Etter; A Rougemont
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 3.710

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.