» Articles » PMID: 9291871

Methodological Problems in the Retrospective Computation of Responsiveness to Change: the Lesson of Cronbach

Overview
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Public Health
Date 1997 Aug 1
PMID 9291871
Citations 143
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To examine the relation between responsiveness coefficients derived directly from a calculation of average change resulting from a treatment intervention (Responsiveness-Treatment or RT) and those derived from retrospective analysis of changed and unchanged groups (Responsiveness Retrospective or RR) based on a global measure of change.

Method: Two approaches were used. First, we used simulation methods to examine the analytical relationship between the RT and RR coefficients. We then located eight studies where it was possible to compute both RT and RR coefficients. As anticipated from theoretical arguments, the RR coefficients were larger than the RT coefficients (1.50 versus 0.41, p < .0001). Within study there was no predictable relationship between the two indices. Across studies, the magnitude of the RR coefficient was strongly related to the correlation with the retrospective global scale, and unrelated to the magnitude of the RT coefficient. The simulated curves fit well with the observed data, and substantiated the observation that the relation between RT and RR coefficients is complex and only weakly related to the size of the treatment effect.

Conclusion: Retrospective methods of computing responsiveness yield little information about the ability of an instrument to detect treatment effects, and should not be used as a basis for choice of an instrument for applications to clinical trials.

Citing Articles

Myelofibrosis symptom assessment form total symptom score version 4.0: measurement properties from the MOMENTUM phase 3 study.

Daskalopoulou C, Gorsh B, Dumi G, Deheshi S, Gwaltney C, Paty J Qual Life Res. 2024; .

PMID: 39585603 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-024-03855-1.


Evaluating anchor variables and variation in meaningful score differences for PROMIS Pediatric measures in children and adolescents living with a rheumatic disease.

Zigler C, Li Z, Hernandez A, Randell R, Mann C, Weitzman E Qual Life Res. 2024; 33(12):3449-3457.

PMID: 39400691 PMC: 11599406. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-024-03800-2.


Minimum Clinically Important Difference of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire for Patients with Lumbar Spine Disease Undergoing Posterior Surgery by Generation.

Kato M, Terai H, Namikawa T, Matsumura A, Hoshino M, Toyoda H Spine Surg Relat Res. 2024; 8(5):518-527.

PMID: 39399457 PMC: 11464827. DOI: 10.22603/ssrr.2023-0293.


Responsiveness of Isokinetic Dynamometry in Patients with Osteoarthritis after Knee and Hip Arthroplasty: A Prospective Repeated-Measures Cohort Study.

Prufer F, Pavlovic M, Matko S, Lofler S, Fischer M, Sarabon N Healthcare (Basel). 2024; 12(3).

PMID: 38338199 PMC: 10855832. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12030314.


Validation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function questionnaire in late-onset Pompe disease using PROPEL phase 3 data.

Kishnani P, Shohet S, Raza S, Hummel N, Castelli J, Das S J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2024; 8(1):13.

PMID: 38294575 PMC: 10830974. DOI: 10.1186/s41687-024-00686-z.