On the Measurement of Change in Medical Research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-6029.2012.01.02.07Keywords:
Measurement, measurement scales, ordinal variables, change indicators, effect sizeAbstract
Measuring of change is essential in medical research. However, these measurements may have different goals and, traditionally, the ability to measure change has focused on sensitivity in a statistical sense, whereas little attention has been directed to the appropriate interpretation and analysis of change indicators. The present report examines some of the most important issues involved in measuring change with pre and post-test data when ordinal scales are used, and the conceptual problems pertaining to the use of these scales are also discussed. It can be said that there is still no agreement about the most adequate strategy for assessing health status change in a group of subjects, what caused the introduction of many indicators, most of which variations of the ES (Effect size: the mean of change scores divided by the standard deviation of the baseline scores) concept. The adequate interpretation of change scores in these cases demands a high degree of knowledge about what these changes mean to specific sub-groups of patients, as well as detailed information on their situation at baseline, such as score distributions. Researchers should strive for interpretations that take into account what "change" means for different patients.
References
Wright JG, Young NL. A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50(3): 239-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00373-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00373-3
Stucki G, Daltroy L, Katz JN, Johannesson M, Liang MH. Interpretation of change scores in ordinal clinical scales and health status measures: The whole may not equal the sum of the parts. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49(7): 711-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(96)00016-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(96)00016-9
Svensson E. Comparison of the quality of assessments using continuous and discrete ordinal rating scales. Biometr J 2000; 42(4): 417-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1521-4036(200008)42:4<417::AID-BIMJ417>3.0.CO;2-Z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1521-4036(200008)42:4<417::AID-BIMJ417>3.0.CO;2-Z
Kampen J, Swyngedouw M. The ordinal controversy revisited. Quality Quantity 2000; 34: 87-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1004785723554 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004785723554
Cohen ME. Analysis of ordinal dental data: evaluation of conflicting recommendations. J Dent Res 2001; 80(1): 309-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00220345010800010301 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345010800010301
Michell J. The psychometrician´s fallacy: Too clever by half? Br J Math Statist Psychol 2009; 62: 41-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000711007X243582 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1348/000711007X243582
Kemp S, Grace RC. When can information from ordinal scale variables be integrated? Psychological Methods, 2010; 15(4): 398-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021462 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021462
Merbitz C, Morris J, Grip JC. Ordinal Scales and foundations of misinference. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989; 70: 308-12.
Knapp TR. Treating ordinal scales as interval scales: an attempt to resolve the controversy. Nursing Res 1990; 39: 121-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-199003000-00019
Velleman PF, Wilkinson L. Nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio typologies are misleading. Am Statistic 1993; 47(1): 65-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1993.10475938
Norman GR, Sridar FG, Guyatt GH, Walter SD. Relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 2001; 39: 1039-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200110000-00002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200110000-00002
Liang MH. Longitudinal construct validity. Establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med Care 2000; 38(9)(Suppl II): II-84 - II-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200009002-00013
Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel FM, Bossuyt PMM. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: Guidelines for instrument evaluation. Quality Life Res 2003; 12: 349-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1023499322593 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023499322593
Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 3rd ed. Reprinted 2005. New York: Oxford University Press 2005; pp. 196-212.
Ostelo RWJG, Deyo RA, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, von Korff M, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain. Spine 2008; 33(1): 90-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e3a10 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e3a10
Fortin PR, Stucki G, Katz JN. Measuring relevant changes: An emerging challenge in rheumatologic clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum. 1995; 38: 1027-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.1780380802 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1780380802
Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 459-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00206-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00206-1
Cronbach LJ, Furby L. How should we measure change or should we? Psychol Bull 1970; 74: 68-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0029382 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029382
Stevens SS. On the theory of scales of measurement. Science 1946; 103: 677-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.103.2684.677 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.103.2684.677
Ferreira MLP, Almeida RMVR, Luiz RR. A new indicator for the measurement of change with ordinal scores. Quality Life Res, in press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2012 Ronir Raggio Luiz, Renan Moritz V.R. Almeida
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Policy for Journals/Articles with Open Access
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post links to their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work
Policy for Journals / Manuscript with Paid Access
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Publisher retain copyright .
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post links to their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work .
