Assessing sensitivity to change: Choosing the appropriate change coefficient

被引:129
作者
Stratford P.W. [1 ,2 ]
Riddle D.L. [3 ]
机构
[1] School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton
[2] Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Institute for Applied Health Science, Hamilton, Ont. L8S 1C7
[3] Department of Physical Therapy, Medical College of Virginia Campus, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298-0224
关键词
Change Score; Global Rating; Error Score; Neck Disability Index; Health Status Measure;
D O I
10.1186/1477-7525-3-23
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The past 20-years have seen the development and evaluation of many health status measures. Unlike the high standards demanded of those who conduct and report clinical intervention trials, the methodological rigor for studies examining the sensitivity to change of health status measures are less demanding. It is likely that the absence of a criterion standard for change in health status contributes to this shortcoming. To increase confidence in the results of these types of studies investigators have often calculated multiple change coefficients for the same patient sample. The purpose of this report is to identify the conflict that arises when multiple change coefficients are applied to the same patient sample. Three families of change coefficients based on different assumptions concerning the sample composition are identified: (1) the sample is homogeneous with respect to change; (2) subgroups of patients who truly change by different amounts exist; (3) individual patients, many of whom truly change by different amounts exist. We present several analyses which illustrate a major conceptual conflict: the signal (a measure's true ability to detect change) for some of these coefficients appears in the noise term (measurement error) of the others. We speculate that this dilemma occurs as a result of insufficient preparatory work such as pilot studies to establish the likely change characteristic of the patient population of interest. Uncertainty in the choice of change coefficient could be overcome by conducting pilot studies to ascertain the likely change characteristic of the population of interest. Once the population's change characteristic is identified, the choice of change coefficient should be clear. © 2005 Stratford and Riddle; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]  
Liang M.H., Fossel A.H., Larson M.G., Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopaedic evaluation, Med. Care, 28, pp. 632-642, (1990)
[2]  
Stucki G., Liang M.H., Fossel A.H., Katz J.N., Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, J. Clin. Epidemiol., 48, pp. 1369-1378, (1995)
[3]  
Deyo R.A., Andersson G., Bombardier C., Cherkin D.C., Keller R.B., Lee C.K., Liang M.H., Lipscomb B., Shekelle P., Spratt K.F., Et al., Outcome measures for studying patients with low back pain, Spine, 19, 18 SUPPL., (1994)
[4]  
Kopec J.A., Esdaile J.M., Abrahamowicz M., Abenhaim L., Wood-Dauphinee S., Lamping D.L., Williams J.I., The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Measurement properties, Spine, 20, 3, pp. 341-352, (1995)
[5]  
Wright J.G., Young N.L., A comparison of different indices of responsiveness, J. Clin. Epidemiol., 50, 3, pp. 239-246, (1997)
[6]  
Poiraudeau S., Chevalier X., Conrozier T., Flippo R.M., Liote F., Noel E., Lefevre-Colau M.M., Fermanian J., Revel M., Rhumato R., Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the Cochin hand functional disability scale in hand osteoarthritis, Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 9, 6, pp. 570-577, (2001)
[7]  
Grotle M., Brox J.I., Vollestad N.K., Concurrent comparison of responsiveness in pain and functional status measurements used for patients with low back pain, Spine, 29, (2004)
[8]  
Pengel L.H.M., Responsiveness of pain, disability, and physical impairment outcomes in patients with low back pain, Spine, 29, pp. 879-883, (2004)
[9]  
Willis C., Niere K.R., Hoving J.L., Green S., Leary E.F.O., Buchbinder R., Reproducibility and responsiveness of the Whiplash Disability Questionnaire, Pain, 110, pp. 681-688, (2004)
[10]  
Chansirinukor W., Maher C.G., Latimer J., Hush J., Comparison of the Functional Rating Index and the 18-item Roland-Morris disability questionnaire: Responsiveness and reliability, Spine, 30, pp. 141-145, (2004)