» Articles » PMID: 15811176

Assessing Sensitivity to Change: Choosing the Appropriate Change Coefficient

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Public Health
Date 2005 Apr 7
PMID 15811176
Citations 40
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Known-Group Validity and Sensitivity to Change in the Sensory-Motor Dysfunction Questionnaire in Individuals with Neck Pain: A Pilot Study.

Ambalavanar U, McIntosh M, Haavik H, Murphy B Brain Sci. 2024; 14(11).

PMID: 39595813 PMC: 11592273. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci14111050.


Translation, cultural adaptation and validation of the Swahili Pain Catastrophizing Scale among refugees who survived torture and/or war trauma in Kenya: An observational study.

Kibet J, Phillips J, Latrous M, Khalil H, Morris L Health Sci Rep. 2024; 7(5):e2095.

PMID: 38766571 PMC: 11099726. DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.2095.


Session-by-session change in misophonia: a descriptive case study using intensive CBT.

Gregory J, Foster C Cogn Behav Therap. 2023; 16:s1754470x23000107.

PMID: 38125011 PMC: 7615391. DOI: 10.1017/S1754470X23000107.


Psychometric properties of the 52-, 25-, and 10-item English and Spanish versions of the Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised.

Schepers S, Phipps S, Devine K, Noll R, Fairclough D, Dolgin M Front Psychol. 2023; 14:1213784.

PMID: 37809313 PMC: 10551167. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1213784.


Health literacy in patients with pulmonary embolism: development and validation of the HeLP (Health Literacy in Pulmonary Embolism)-Questionnaire.

Fischer S, Kalch A, Kuchler C, Albani A, Bilandzic H, Horenkamp-Sonntag D Front Public Health. 2023; 11:1167499.

PMID: 37711241 PMC: 10497959. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1167499.


References
1.
Deyo R, Andersson G, Bombardier C, Cherkin D, KELLER R, Lee C . Outcome measures for studying patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994; 19(18 Suppl):2032S-2036S. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199409151-00003. View

2.
Kopec J, Esdaile J, Abrahamowicz M, Abenhaim L, Wood-Dauphinee S, Lamping D . The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Measurement properties. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995; 20(3):341-52. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199502000-00016. View

3.
Stucki G, Liang M, Fossel A, Katz J . Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995; 48(11):1369-78. DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(95)00054-2. View

4.
Wright J, Young N . A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997; 50(3):239-46. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00373-3. View

5.
Norman G, Stratford P, Regehr G . Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997; 50(8):869-79. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00097-8. View