Comparisons of Five Health Status Instruments for Orthopedic Evaluation

Liang, Matthew H.; Fossel, Anne H.; Larson, Martin G.

doi:10.1097/00005650-199007000-00008

Cited by 849 publications

(587 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

565

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As the 'distribution-based responsiveness' has been used in the present study, responsiveness has been assessed using three methods: (1) comparing test scores measured at different times, 26,27 (2) the standard response mean 19,28 and (3) the effect size (ES). 29,30 As to the first method, a Friedman test was used to detect significant changes in consecutive VLT, GRT, FIM and QIF scores across the three measurements between the onset of rehabilitation and discharge with the level of significance set at a ¼ 0.05.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As to the second and the third method, the standardized response mean (SRM), which is the mean change score divided by the standard deviation (SD) of the change score, 19,28 and the ES, which is the mean change score divided by the SD of the baseline score, 29,30 have been used. In the present study, we refer to 'delta values' as the mean change scores.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring change in arm hand skilled performance in persons with a cervical spinal cord injury: responsiveness of the Van Lieshout Test

Spooren¹,

Janssen-Potten²,

Post

et al. 2006

Spinal Cord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To asses whether the Van Lieshout Test (VLT) is responsive to measure changes in arm hand skilled performance (AHSP) over time during active rehabilitation in persons with cervical spinal cord injury (C-SCI) and in different subgroups of persons with C-SCI according to lesion completeness and to lesion level. Study design: Longitudinal cohort study. Setting: Spinal Cord Injury Units in eight rehabilitation centres across the Netherlands. Methods: In the present study, data from a national SCI cohort study are used. Data from the VLT, the Grasp Release Test (GRT), the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and the Quadriplegia Index of Function (QIF) were recorded at three moments during active rehabilitation: at the start of active rehabilitation (t1), 3 months after t1 (t2) and at discharge (t3). Data have been analysed using three responsiveness measures, that is, the standardized response mean, the effect size and comparison of test scores measured at different times. Results: The VLT is responsive for the intervals t1-3, t1-2 and t2-3. The VLT can be used to measure changes in AHSP in persons with a C-SCI with an American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) A or B score or an AIS C or D score, as well as in persons with a C3-C6 lesion or a C7-T1 lesion. The responsiveness of the VLT is significantly correlated to the GRT, but not to the FIM and the QIF. Conclusion: The VLT is responsive in measuring changes in AHSP during rehabilitation in persons with C-SCI.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring change in arm hand skilled performance in persons with a cervical spinal cord injury: responsiveness of the Van Lieshout Test

Spooren¹,

Janssen-Potten²,

Post

et al. 2006

Spinal Cord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…VAS ϭ visual analog scale; NRS ϭ numerical rating scale. (26), the standardized response mean (27), and the method described by Guyatt et al (28). The results were interpreted according to the Cohen's effect size index, in which 0.2 refers to a small change, 0.5 to moderate, and 0.8 or more to large change (29).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of a numerical rating scale as an answer modality in ankylosing spondylitis–specific questionnaires

Tubergen¹,

Debats²,

Ryser³

et al. 2002

Arthritis & Rheumatism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moderate to large effects (0.48 -1.04) were found in responsiveness scores in the 3 questionnaires. No major differences in reproducibility and responsiveness between the answer modalities were found. Conclusion. Although large variability between the scores on the original answer scales and the NRS was observed, the BASDAI, BASFI, and DFI can be administered with an NRS, which does not show important differences compared with the original scales.

show abstract

“…In a longitudinal sample, the ability of the instrument to capture change over time within the same group of patients would be tested by following up patients from the preoperative to postoperative period and evaluating changes in the scores for the domains. The responsiveness of a new instrument can be compared with the existing measures and reported using summary statistics such as relative validity coefficient (ratio of two F-test statistics) [24,29]; standardized effect size (difference between two means in SD at baseline units) [26]; and standardized response mean (SRM, difference between means in SD of the differences units) [2,15,26]. Larger values of these summary statistics correspond to greater responsiveness.…”

Section: Psychometric Testing: Classical Test Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Statistical Considerations in the Psychometric Validation of Outcome Measures

Sikorskii

Noble

2013

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The evaluation of the outcomes of total knee arthroplasty requires measurement tools that are valid, reliable, and responsive to change. However, the accuracy of any outcome measurement is determined by the validity and reliability of the instrument used. To ensure this accuracy, it is imperative that each instrument used in orthopaedics is free of biases leading to inaccurate estimates of treatment effects. Where are we now? Many patient-derived outcome instruments have been developed and tested through the application of the standard assessments that form the basis of classical test theory: validity, reliability, and responsiveness. These assessments determine if the instrument reliably measures what it is intended to measure, and if it captures differences among groups of patients or changes over time.

show abstract

Comparisons of Five Health Status Instruments for Orthopedic Evaluation

Cited by 849 publications

References 13 publications

Measuring change in arm hand skilled performance in persons with a cervical spinal cord injury: responsiveness of the Van Lieshout Test

Measuring change in arm hand skilled performance in persons with a cervical spinal cord injury: responsiveness of the Van Lieshout Test

Use of a numerical rating scale as an answer modality in ankylosing spondylitis–specific questionnaires

Statistical Considerations in the Psychometric Validation of Outcome Measures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About