REPRODUCIBILITY AND RESPONSIVENESS OF EVALUATIVE OUTCOME MEASURES

OBJECTIVE This article outlines basic methods for quantifying reproducibility and responsiveness of evaluative outcome measures. METHODS The background noise in stable patients provides the desired information to quantify the reproducibility. From this, the smallest real difference (SRD) for longitudinal differences can be derived. We propose to use the SRD to define responsiveness: from all patients who change according to an external criterion, we take the percentage that changes at least SRD on the outcome measure. A more complete picture of the responsiveness of the outcome measure arises when the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) is constructed, corresponding to all possible cut-off change scores. The proposed methods are illustrated with an empirical example. RESULTS In the illustration the methods appeared to be very useful and complemented each other. We could evaluate whether the observed change score was larger than that expected due to chance. With the methods it was possible to evaluate both the ability of an instrument to detect change if there is a real change in health status (sensitivity to change) and the ability to detect absence of change if there is no real change (specificity to change). CONCLUSION We presented the use of SRDs and ROC curves for quantifying reproducibility and responsiveness. We started with the basic notions and arrived at methods that are both understandable and useful.

[1]  A. Beurskens,et al.  Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments , 1996, Pain.

[2]  B Kirshner,et al.  A methodological framework for assessing health indices. , 1985, Journal of chronic diseases.

[3]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[4]  J. Fries,et al.  Toward an understanding of patient outcome measurement. , 1983, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[5]  P. Lachenbruch Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[6]  P Tugwell,et al.  Criteria for clinically important changes in outcomes: development, scoring and evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis patient and trial profiles. OMERACT Committee. , 1993, The Journal of rheumatology.

[7]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Measuring health status: what are the necessary measurement properties? , 1992, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  P. Knipschild,et al.  Efficacy of traction for non-specific low back pain: a randomised clinical trial , 1995, The Lancet.

[9]  C. Bombardier,et al.  Evaluating changes in health status: reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[10]  M. Liang,et al.  Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. , 1995, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[11]  M H Liang,et al.  Evaluating measurement responsiveness. , 1995, The Journal of rheumatology.

[12]  D L Riddle,et al.  Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. , 1996, Physical therapy.

[13]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Minimum important difference between patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the patient's perspective. , 1993, The Journal of rheumatology.

[14]  L. Bouter,et al.  Responsiveness of the rehabilitation activities profile and the Barthel index. , 1996, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  P Tugwell,et al.  Preference for endpoint measures in clinical trials: results of structured workshops. , 1982, The Journal of rheumatology.

[16]  G. Regehr,et al.  Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[17]  Lex M Bouter,et al.  Responsiveness of general health status in chronic low back pain: a comparison of the COOP Charts and the SF-36 , 1999, PAIN.

[18]  J. Wright,et al.  A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[19]  M. Roland,et al.  A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. , 1983, Spine.

[20]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. , 1994, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[21]  L M Bouter,et al.  Shoulder disability questionnaire design and responsiveness of a functional status measure. , 2000, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[22]  J. Harlaar,et al.  The application of generalizability theory to reliability assessment: an illustration using isometric force measurements. , 1993, Physical therapy.

[23]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials , 1998, BMJ.

[24]  R A Deyo,et al.  Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. , 1986, Journal of chronic diseases.

[25]  R A Deyo,et al.  Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. , 1991, Controlled clinical trials.

[26]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[27]  L. Bouter,et al.  The responsiveness of the Shoulder Disability Questionnaire , 1998, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[28]  J C Fairbank,et al.  The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. , 1980, Physiotherapy.

[29]  P. Pynsent,et al.  The Oswestry Disability Index. , 2000, Spine.

[30]  D. Streiner,et al.  Health Measurement Scales: A practical guide to thier development and use , 1989 .

[31]  P Tugwell,et al.  Methodological considerations in functional assessment. , 1987, The Journal of rheumatology. Supplement.

[32]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.