218
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    4
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This paper aims to identify problems in estimating and the interpretation of the magnitude of intervention-related change over time or responsiveness assessed with health outcome measures. Responsiveness is a problematic construct and there is no consensus on how to quantify the appropriate index to estimate change over time between baseline and post-test designs. This paper gives an overview of several responsiveness indices. Thresholds for effect size (or responsiveness index) interpretation were introduced some thirty years ago by Cohen who standardised the difference-scores ( d) with the pooled standard deviation ( d/SD pooled). However, many effect sizes (ES) have been introduced since Cohen's original work and in the formula of one of these ES, the mean change scores are standardised with the SD of those change scores ( d/SD change). When health outcome questionnaires are used, this effect size is applied on a wide scale and is represented as the Standardized Response Mean (SRM). However, its interpretation is problematic when it is used as an estimate of magnitude of change over time and interpreted with the thresholds, set by Cohen for effect size (ES) which is based on SD pooled. Thus, in the case of using the SRM, application of these well-known cut-off points for pooled standard deviation units namely: ‘trivial’ (ES<0.20), ‘small’ (ES≥0.20<0.50), ‘moderate’ (ES≥0.50<0.80), or large (ES≥0.80), may lead to over- or underestimation of the magnitude of intervention-related change over time due to the correlation between baseline and outcome assessments.

          Consequently, taking Cohen's thresholds for granted for every version of effect size indices as estimates of intervention-related magnitude of change, may lead to over- or underestimation of this magnitude of intervention-related change over time.

          For those researchers who use Cohen's thresholds for SRM interpretation, this paper demonstrates a simple method to avoid over-or underestimation.

          Abstract

          Health-related functional status: concepts, measurement and psychometric properties

          Related collections

          Most cited references128

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores.

          To determine the significance to patients of changes in health-related quality-of-life (HLQ) scores assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). A subjective significance questionnaire (SSQ), which asks patients about perceived changes in physical, emotional, and social functioning and in global quality of life (global QL) and the QLQ-C30 were completed by patients who received chemotherapy for either breast cancer or small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). In the SSQ, patients rated their perception of change since the last time they completed the QLQ-C30 using a 7-category scale that ranged from "much worse" through "no change" to "much better." For each category of change in the SSQ, the corresponding differences were calculated in QLQ-C30 mean scores and effect sizes were determined. For patients who indicated "no change" in the SSQ, the mean change in scores in the corresponding QLQ-C30 domains was not significantly different from 0. For patients who indicated "a little" change either for better or for worse, the mean change in scores was about 5 to 10; for "moderate" change, about 10 to 20; and for "very much" change, greater than 20. Effect sizes increased in concordance with increasing changes in SSQ ratings and QLQ-C30 scores. The significance of changes in QLQ-C30 scores can be interpreted in terms of small, moderate, or large changes in quality of life as reported by patients in the SSQ. The magnitude of these changes also can be used to calculate the sample sizes required to detect a specified change in clinical trials.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age.

            To gain population norms for the short form 36 health survey questionnaire (SF36) in a large community sample and to explore the questionnaire's internal consistency and validity. Postal survey by using a booklet containing the SF36 and several other items concerned with lifestyles and illness. The sample was drawn from computerised registers of the family health services authorities for Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire, and Oxfordshire. 13,042 randomly selected subjects aged 18-64 years. Scores for the eight health dimensions of the SF36. The survey achieved a response rate of 72% (n = 9332). Internal consistency of the different dimensions of the questionnaire was high. Normative data broken down by age, sex, and social class were consistent with those from previous studies. The SF36 is a potentially valuable tool in medical research. The normative data provided here may further facilitate its validation and use.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations.

              A review of the literature suggests there are two major aspects of responsiveness. We define the first as "internal responsiveness," which characterizes the ability of a measure to change over a prespecified time frame, and the second as "external responsiveness, " which reflects the extent to which change in a measure relates to corresponding change in a reference measure of clinical or health status. The properties and interpretation of commonly used internal and external responsiveness statistics are examined. It is from the interpretation point of view that external responsiveness statistics are considered particularly attractive. The usefulness of regression models for assessing external responsiveness is also highlighted.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Department of Health Sciences, Sub-Division Care Science, University of Groningen, A. Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV Groningen, The Netherlands
                Department of Health Sciences and Northern Centre for Healthcare research, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
                Journal
                Int J Integr Care
                IJIC
                International Journal of Integrated Care
                Igitur, Utrecht Publishing & Archiving (Utrecht, The Netherlands )
                1568-4156
                Oct-Dec 2002
                17 December 2002
                : 2
                : e15
                Affiliations
                Department of Health Sciences, Sub-Division Care Science, University of Groningen, A. Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV Groningen, The Netherlands
                Department of Health Sciences and Northern Centre for Healthcare research, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: Berrie Middel, Phone: +31 50 363 6504, Fax: +31 50 363, E-mail: B.Middel@ 123456med.rug.nl
                Article
                ijic200215
                10.5334/ijic.65
                1480399
                16896390
                8d65928c-cebf-4bd7-87aa-131579657f96
                Copyright 2002, International Journal of Integrated Care (IJIC)
                History
                : 29 January 2002
                : 14 October 2002
                : 25 October 2002
                Categories
                Research and Theory

                Health & Social care
                health outcome,sensitivity to change,standardized response mean,effect size,methodology,responsiveness,questionnaires

                Comments

                Comment on this article