Correction: How strong should my anchor be for estimating group and individual level meaningful change? A simulation study assessing anchor correlation strength and the impact of sample size, distribution of change scores and methodology on establishing a true meaningful change threshold

Griffiths, Pip; Sims, Joel; Williams, Abi; Williamson, Nicola; Cella, David; Brohan, Elaine; Cocks, Kim

doi:10.1007/s11136-023-03356-7

Qual Life Res

2023

DOI: 10.1007/s11136-023-03356-7

|View full text |Cite

Correction: How strong should my anchor be for estimating group and individual level meaningful change? A simulation study assessing anchor correlation strength and the impact of sample size, distribution of change scores and methodology on establishing a true meaningful change threshold

Pip Griffiths

Joel Sims

Abi Williams

et al.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2024

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Validity, reliability, responsiveness, and clinically meaningful change threshold estimates of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16)

Clarke,

Wong,

Lawrance

et al. 2024

J Patient Rep Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in women. Patient-reported outcome measures are used to evaluate patients’ health-related quality of life in clinical breast cancer studies. This study evaluated the structure, validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16) subscales in a clinical trial featuring patients with advanced/metastatic breast cancer (aBC), and estimated NFBSI-16 meaningful change thresholds. Methods Data from 101 patients with aBC enrolled in a phase II trial (Xenera-1) were included for psychometric evaluation of the NFBSI-16. Subscale structure was evaluated by assessing inter-item correlations, item-total correlations, and internal consistency (cycles 2 and 5). Validity was assessed using scale-level convergent validity (cycles 2 and 5) and known-groups (Baseline). Reliability was analysed via test-retest at cycles 3–4, and responsiveness to improvement and worsening was evaluated at cycles 5, 7, and 9. Meaningful change thresholds were estimated using anchor-based methods (supported by distribution-based methods) at cycles 5, 7, and 9. Results NFBSI-16 internal consistency was acceptable, but item-total correlations suggested that its subscales and the GP5 item (side-effect of treatment) scores may be preferred over a total score. Convergent and known-groups evidence supported NFBSI-16 validity. Test-retest reliability was good to excellent for Total and DRS-P (disease-related symptoms: physical) scales, and moderate for the GP5 item. Responsiveness to worsening was generally demonstrated, but responsiveness to improvement could not be demonstrated due to limited observed improvement. Anchor-based meaningful change thresholds were estimated for DRS-P and Total scores. Conclusion This study provides evidence that the NFBSI-16 has desirable psychometric properties for use in clinical studies in aBC. It also provides estimates of group- and individual-level meaningful change thresholds to facilitate score interpretation in future aBC research.

show abstract

Validity, reliability, responsiveness, and clinically meaningful change threshold estimates of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16)

Clarke,

Wong,

Lawrance

et al. 2024

J Patient Rep Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Correction: How strong should my anchor be for estimating group and individual level meaningful change? A simulation study assessing anchor correlation strength and the impact of sample size, distribution of change scores and methodology on establishing a true meaningful change threshold

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

Validity, reliability, responsiveness, and clinically meaningful change threshold estimates of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16)

Validity, reliability, responsiveness, and clinically meaningful change threshold estimates of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About