Skip to main content
Log in

Quantifying responsiveness of quality of life measures without an external criterion

Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The responsiveness of a quality of life measure has received considerable attention in the literature. A two time-point (pre-/post-) study design is usually adopted to evaluate this property when a gold standard is not available. Among many indices, Cohen’s effect size and the standardized response mean (SRM) are usually computed. To interpret the results, researchers commonly appeal to an arbitrary criterion for both indices even though they are different by definition. In this paper, we demonstrate their close algebraic relationship and conceptual differences, showing that only the SRM is necessary to quantify responsiveness. To facilitate interpretation, we transform the SRM to the ‘probability of change’ with a value of 0.5 denoting null responsiveness and 1.0 perfect responsiveness. Simple confidence interval procedures are provided and evaluated. We also discuss the possibility of applying the results to the analysis of data from a two independent groups pre-/post- design. Two examples are provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A Garratt L Schmidt A Mackintosh Fitzpatrick (2002) ArticleTitleQuality of life measurements: Bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures Br Med J 324 1417–1421

    Google Scholar 

  2. DE Beaton C Bombardier JN Katz JG. Wright (2001) ArticleTitleA taxonomy for responsiveness J Clin Epidemiol 54 1204–1217 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00407-3 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD38%2FgtlCrsw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11750189

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. CB Terwee FW Dekker WM Wiersinga MF Prummel PMM. Bossuyt (2003) ArticleTitleOn assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: Guidelines for instrument evaluation Qual Life Res 12 349–362 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3s3ntFCjsw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle12797708

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. JA Husted RJ Cook VT Farewell DD. Gladman (2000) ArticleTitleMethods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendations J Clin Epidemiol 53 459–468 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3nsVShuw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10812317

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. RD Crosby RL Kolotkin GR. Willaims (2003) ArticleTitleDefining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life J Clin Epidemiol 56 395–407 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00044-1 Occurrence Handle12812812

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. G Guyatt S Walter G. Norman (1987) ArticleTitleMeasuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments J Chron Dis 40 171–178 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BiiC3sfhtFE%3D Occurrence Handle3818871

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Liang MH. Longitudinal construct validity: Establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med Care; 38 (Suppl. II): 84–90.

  8. LE Kazis JJ Anderson RF. Meenan (1989) ArticleTitleEffect sizes for interpreting changes in health status Med Care 27 S178–S189 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BiaC2Mfjt1U%3D Occurrence Handle2646488

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. MH Liang AH Fossel MG. Larson (1990) ArticleTitleComparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation Med Care 28 632–642 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By%2BA3cbktlQ%3D Occurrence Handle2366602

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. G Samsa D Edelman ML Rothman R Williams J Lipscomb D. Matchar (1999) ArticleTitleDetermining clinically important differences in health status measures Pharmacoeconomics 15 141–155 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M3isFyitg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10351188

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. RA Deyo RM. Centor (1986) ArticleTitleAssessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: An analogy to diagnostic test performance J Chron Dis 39 897–906 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0021-9681(86)90038-X Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BiiD1cznsVI%3D Occurrence Handle2947907

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. J. Cohen (1977) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences Academic Press San Diego, CA

    Google Scholar 

  13. NS Jacobson P. Truax (1991) ArticleTitleClinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research J Consult Clin Psych 59 12–19 Occurrence Handle10.1037//0022-006X.59.1.12 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By6C287nsFQ%3D

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. RJ Ferguson MB Robinson M. Splaine (2002) ArticleTitleUse of the Reliable Change Index to evaluate clinical significance in SF-36 outcomes Qual Life Res 11 509–516 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1016350431190 Occurrence Handle12206571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. JG Wright NL. Young (1997) ArticleTitleA comparison of different indices of responsiveness J Clin Epidemiol 50 239–246 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiB2cnms1c%3D Occurrence Handle9120522

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. G Stucki MH Liang AH Fossel JN. Katz (1995) ArticleTitleRelative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis J Clin Epidemiol 48 1369–1378 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0895-4356(95)00054-2 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BymD1Mrgsl0%3D Occurrence Handle7490600

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. DB Owenr KJ Craswell DL. Hanson (1964) ArticleTitleNonparametric upper confidence bounds for Pr(Y<X)and confidence limits for Pr(Y<X)when Xand Yare normal J Am Stat Assoc 59 906–924

    Google Scholar 

  18. DE Beaton S Hogg-Johnson C. Bombardier (1997) ArticleTitleEvaluating changes in health status: Reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders J Clin Epidemiol 50 79–93 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiB3c%2Fos1A%3D Occurrence Handle9048693

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. MR Tuley CD Mulrow CA. McMahan (1991) ArticleTitleEstimating and testing an index of responsiveness and the relationship of the index to power J Clin Epidemiol 44 417–421 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0895-4356(91)90080-S Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By6C1cnhslw%3D Occurrence Handle2010785

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. LE. Daly (1998) ArticleTitleConfidence limits made easy: Interval estimation using a substitution method Am J Epidemiol 147 783–790 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c3htlSrsA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9554420

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. SD. Walter (2001) ArticleTitleNumber needed to treat (NNT): Estimation of a measure of clinic benefit Stat Med 20 3947–3962 Occurrence Handle10.1002/sim.1173 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD38%2Fls1SltA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11782045

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. MAG Spranger CM Moinpour TJ Moynihan DL Patrick DA. Revicki (2002) ArticleTitleAssessing meaningful change in quality of life over time: A users’ guide for clinicians Mayo Clin Proc 77 561–571 Occurrence Handle12059127

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. J Sloan T Symonds D Vargas-Chanes B. Fridley (2003) ArticleTitlePractical guidelines for assessing the clinical significance of health-related quality of life changes in clinical trials Drug Inf J 37 23–31

    Google Scholar 

  24. KW Wyrwich M Bullinger N Aaronson RD Hays DL Patrick T. Symonds (2005) ArticleTitleEstimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes Qual Life Res 14 285–295 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s11136-004-0705-2 Occurrence Handle15892420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. B. Thompson (2001) ArticleTitleSignificance, effect size, stepwise methods, and other issues: Strong arguments move the field J Exp Educ 70 80–93

    Google Scholar 

  26. Norman GR. Issues in the use of change scores in randomized studies. J Clin Epidemiol 42: 1097–1105.

  27. H Brown R. Prescott (1999) Applied Mixed Models in Medicine Wiley New York

    Google Scholar 

  28. CE McCulloch SR. Searle (2001) Generalized, Linear, and Mixed Models Wiley New York

    Google Scholar 

  29. Faircolough DL. Design and Analysis of Quality of Life Studies in Clinical Trials. Chapman & Hall, 2002.

  30. Casella G, Berger RL. Statistical Inference. 2nd ed. Duxbury, 2002.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guang Yong Zou.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zou, G.Y. Quantifying responsiveness of quality of life measures without an external criterion. Qual Life Res 14, 1545–1552 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-0027-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-0027-4

Keywords

Navigation