Longitudinal Construct Validity
Establishment of Clinical Meaning in Patient Evaluative Instruments
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9103854 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Matthew H Liang (Brigham and Women's Hospital, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2000 |
| Volume | 38 |
| Pages | II-84-II-90 |
| Publication date | 2000-09-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Medical Care (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0025-7079 • E-ISSN: 1537-1948 |
| Publisher | Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1097/00005650-200009002-00013 |
| OpenAlex | W3112944808 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 10 |
| References cited | 30 |
Objectives. Although widely used and reported in research for the evaluation of groups, measures of health status and health-related quality of life have had little application in clinical practice for the assessment of individual patients. One of the principal barriers is the demonstration that these measures add clinically significant information to measures of function or symptoms alone. Here, we review the methods for evaluation of construct validity in longitudinal studies and make recommendations for nomenclature, reporting of study results, and future research agenda. Methods. Analytical review. Results. The terms “sensitivity” and “responsiveness” have been used interchangeably, and there are few studies that evaluate the extent to which health status or health-related quality-of life measures capture clinically important changes (“responsiveness”). Current methods of evaluating responsiveness are not standardized or evaluated. Approaches for the assessment of a clinically significant or meaningful change are described; rather than normative information, however, standardized transition questions are proposed. They would be reported routinely and as separate axes of description to capture individual perceptions. Conclusions. Research in methods to assess the subject’s evaluation of the importance and magnitude of a measured change are critical if health status and health-related quality-of-life measures are to have an impact on patient care
Construct (python library) · Construct validity · Health care · MEDLINE · Normative · Psychometrics · Quality of life (healthcare) · Applied Psychology · Clinical Psychology · Computer Science · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Health, psychology, and well-being · Medicine · Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation · Nursing · Psychology · Gerontology
On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments
Measurement properties of the Work Limitations Questionnaire were sufficient among cancer survivors
Quantifying responsiveness of quality of life measures without an external criterion
Comparative responsiveness and minimal change for the Oxford Elbow Score following surgery
Changes in implicit God representations after psychotherapy for patients diagnosed with a personality disorder. Associations with changes in explicit God representations, distress and object-relational functioning
Use of SF-36 and SF-12 Health Status Measures
Health-Related Quality-of-Life Assessments in Diverse Population Groups in the United States
Response to Liang& colon; Responsiveness in Quality-of-Life Assessment
Response to Liang& colon; Assessment of the Evaluative Properties of Health Status Instruments
Health Outcomes Methodology Symposium
Measuring change over time
Measurement of health status
Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient?
Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire
A scheme for assessing measurement sensitivity in program evaluation and other applied research
Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice
Comparisons of Five Health Status Instruments for Orthopedic Evaluation
Linking Clinical Relevance and Statistical significance in Evaluating Intra-Individual Changes in Health-Related Quality of Life
Comparative Measurement Sensitivity of Short and Longer Health Status Instruments
Effect Sizes for Interpreting Changes in Health Status
| Unique citing works | 10 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,38 |
| Citation span | 2000 - 2022 (23) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 10 |