Changing measurement instrument at follow-up a potential source of error

Cahn, Timothy S.; Cram, Jeffrey R.

doi:10.1007/bf00998602

Cited by 25 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since Cahn and Cram 10 found a pattern similar to Andrasik et al, 8 but with adults, it is unlikely that age alone accounts for these differences. The feature common to both studies 8,10 was that data col- .23 (mean) t 11.42 **** 11.11 **** 10.28 **** 11.30 **** 11.48 **** -11.04 **** 23.10 **** * First questionnaire administration only. * p: = .05 ** p = ,01 *** p = .001 **** p = .0001 lection took place while subjects were awaiting treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Further Examination of Headache in a College Student Population

Attanasio

Andrasik

1987

Headache

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SYNOPSIS The purpose of the present study was two‐fold. The first was to examine further the prevalence of headache in a college sample. The second was to evaluate the test/re‐test reliability of the questionnaire measure of prevalence and its concurrent validity (by comparing information collected on it to like measures collected by systematic, daily headache diary records). Headache was found to be a widespread phenomenon that was affecting at least 45% of all students once per week, and 35–45% of the students experienced headache severe enough to disrupt planned activities. Headaches experienced by females tended to be more frequent, more intense, and of longer duration. Individual questionnaire items overall evidenced high test/re‐test reliability over 1, 4, and 8 weeks, although responses to inquiries about location and nature of headache pain were varied. However, questionnaire estimates of frequency, duration, and intensity showed little correspondence to data obtained from diary records. In general, questionnaire measures appear to underestimate frequency and duration, while overestimating intensity, when compared to actual recordings of headache activity. Thus, when used in isolation, global questionnaire measures of headache do not appear to provide accurate information about the occurrence of the problem.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Further Examination of Headache in a College Student Population

Attanasio

Andrasik

1987

Headache

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some, however, have conducted their longer term follow‐up evaluations by different data‐gathering approaches, using more global and retrospective measures such as phone or face‐to‐face interviews and/or questionnaires. Comparisons of these later approaches to diary‐based approaches often yield very different findings 9–12 . In general, the global/retrospective measures appear to produce higher levels of headache activity prior to intervention and lower levels following intervention, thus greatly inflating overall improvement.…”

Section: Basic Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcome Measurement in Behavioral Headache Research: Headache Parameters and Psychosocial Outcomes

Andrasik

McCrory²,

Wittrock³

2005

Headache

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The experience of pain is complex and includes multiple dimensions or aspects, such as sensory and affective (among others). Headache includes not only pain, but also associated symptoms that can further diversify the relevant dimensions. Subjective ratings of head pain, sampled daily, have come to be regarded as the "gold standard" in behavioral headache research. Primary measures of headache include the attack frequency or headache days per month. Secondary measures of headache may include headache activity/index, headache duration, peak headache severity, and/or frequency of severe headaches per month. Secondary measures of disability and quality of life include Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Headache Impact Test (HIT), Headache Disability Inventory (HDI). Secondary nonheadache measures include medication consumption, psychiatric symptoms, stress and coping, treatment satisfaction and preference, side effects, and others. Researchers should include not only primary measures of headache, but also secondary measures, disability and quality of life, and nonheadache measures. All measures should be clearly defined and reported. A baseline period that is adequate for each measure needs inclusion and a minimum of 4 weeks is recommended for primary headache measures. Specific suggestions for future research directions are provided.

show abstract

“…Many clinical studies exhibit more impressive results than do prospective research studies because of clinicians' tendencies to use interviews or global questionnaires to obtain retrospective estimates of headache improvement as opposed to more objective, daily reports such as headache diaries Blanchard, Andrasik, Neff, Jurish, & O'Keefe, 1981). Research indicates that patients examined by interview overstate headache activity at pretreatment and underestimate headache activity at follow-up relative to diary evaluations, leading to greater discrepancies (Cahn & Cram, 1980). Unfortunately, it is rarely feasible for clinical investigators to obtain dairies in long-term follow-up data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A retrospective, follow-up study of biofeedback-assisted relaxation therapy in patients with posttraumatic headache

Ham¹,

Packard²

1996

Biofeedback and Self-Regulation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although biofeedback in the treatment of migraine and tension-type headache has been widely researched, there is little research examining biofeedback therapy in posttraumatic headache (PTH). In this retrospective study, 40 subjects with PTH who had received biofeedback-assisted relaxation at our headache clinic were questioned at least 3 months following the completion of therapy. Subjects were queried about improvements in headache, increases in ability to relax and cope with pain, and overall benefits, lasting effectiveness, and continued use of biofeedback in daily life. Results indicate 53% reported at least moderate improvement in headaches; 80% reported at least moderate improvement in ability to relax and cope with pain; 93% found biofeedback helpful to some degree; 85% felt headache relief achieved through biofeedback had continued at least somewhat; and 95% stated they were continuing to use biofeedback skills in daily life. A correlation analysis revealed a negative relationship between response to biofeedback and increased chronicity of the disorder. In other words, the more chronic the disorder, the poorer the response to treatment. A stepwise regression analysis found that chronicity of the disorder and number of treatment sessions significantly affected response to treatment. Data suggest that biofeedback-assisted relaxation should at least be considered when planning treatment strategies for posttraumatic headache.

show abstract

Changing measurement instrument at follow-up a potential source of error

Cited by 25 publications

References 15 publications

Further Examination of Headache in a College Student Population

Further Examination of Headache in a College Student Population

Outcome Measurement in Behavioral Headache Research: Headache Parameters and Psychosocial Outcomes

A retrospective, follow-up study of biofeedback-assisted relaxation therapy in patients with posttraumatic headache

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About