Literature DB >> 8863764

Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores.

P W Stratford1, J M Binkley, D L Riddle.   

Abstract

Over the last 15 years, numerous self-report health status measures have appeared in the literature. An important parallel development has been the development of numerous strategies for assessing change in health status over time. The purpose of this article is to summarize and critique the more common design and analytic strategies for assessing the meaningfulness of change over time. Five commonly reported designs are presented, critiqued, and depicted using examples from the literature. Methods for analyzing results are reviewed and illustrated using two data sets. Insights into comparing competing health status measures are provided. In summary, the article suggests that some designs and analytic strategies are more adept than others at assessing change and that these methods should be considered when planning sensitivity-to-change studies.

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8863764     DOI: 10.1093/ptj/76.10.1109

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


  70 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Measurement properties of a new quality of life measure for patients with work disability associated with musculoskeletal pain.

Authors:  M F Coutu; M J Durand; P Loisel; G Dupuis; S Gervais
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2005-09

4.  ADHD Rating Scale IV: psychometric properties from a multinational study as a clinician-administered instrument.

Authors:  S Zhang; D E Faries; M Vowles; D Michelson
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.035

5.  Responsiveness of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire to progression to advanced age-related macular degeneration, vision loss, and lens opacity: AREDS Report no. 14.

Authors:  Anne S Lindblad; Traci E Clemons
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-09

6.  What is the minimum clinically important difference in grip strength?

Authors:  Jae Kwang Kim; Min Gyue Park; Sung Joon Shin
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-05-10       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Comparative responsiveness and minimal change for the Oxford Elbow Score following surgery.

Authors:  Jill Dawson; Helen Doll; Irene Boller; Ray Fitzpatrick; Christopher Little; Jonathan Rees; Andrew Carr
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-10-29       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Development of a self-report measure of fearful activities for patients with low back pain: the fear of daily activities questionnaire.

Authors:  Steven Z George; Carolina Valencia; Giorgio Zeppieri; Michael E Robinson
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2009-07-16

9.  A pilot mixed methods study of patient satisfaction with chiropractic care for back pain.

Authors:  Robert M Rowell; Judith Polipnick
Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 1.437

10.  Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach.

Authors:  Henrica C W de Vet; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Caroline B Terwee; Nicole van der Roer; Dirk L Knol; Heleen Beckerman; Maarten Boers; Lex M Bouter
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-10-11       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.