Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: A clarification

Gordon H. Guyatt, Richard (Rick) Deyo, Mary Charlson, Mark N. Levine, Alba Mitchell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

336 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We present data from two studies which clarify the relationship between the responsiveness and validity of instruments designed to measure health status in clinical trials. In a controlled trial of long vs short duration adjuvant chemotherapy for women with Stage II breast cancer, the Breast Cancer Chemotherapy Questionnaire (BCQ) proved valid as a measure of subjective health status and was able to distinguish long vs short arms. Well validated measures of physical and emotional function developed by the Rand Corporation were unable to distinguish between the two groups. The Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group Criteria (ECOG) distinguished the two groups, but failed criteria of clinical sensibility as a measure of subjective health status. In a study of patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) showed small intrasubject variability over time. Gobal ratings of change showed moderate to high correlations with changes in IBDQ score, and patients who reported overall improvement or deterioration showed large changes in IBDQ score. Each of these findings support, in different ways, the reproducibility, validity, and responsiveness of the questionnaire. While the same data can at times bear on both validity and responsiveness, when assessing evaluative instruments it is useful to make a conceptual distinction between the two.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)403-408
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume42
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 1989
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Health Status
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
Diagnostic Self Evaluation
Breast Neoplasms
Adjuvant Chemotherapy
Ulcerative Colitis
Crohn Disease
Surveys and Questionnaires
Clinical Trials
Drug Therapy

Keywords

  • Clinical trials
  • Quality of life
  • Reproducibility Sensitivity to change
  • Responsiveness
  • Validity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Epidemiology
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement : A clarification. / Guyatt, Gordon H.; Deyo, Richard (Rick); Charlson, Mary; Levine, Mark N.; Mitchell, Alba.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 42, No. 5, 1989, p. 403-408.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Guyatt, Gordon H. ; Deyo, Richard (Rick) ; Charlson, Mary ; Levine, Mark N. ; Mitchell, Alba. / Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement : A clarification. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1989 ; Vol. 42, No. 5. pp. 403-408.
@article{c6e77fa84b3e41a8901cb7d3744cff60,
title = "Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: A clarification",
abstract = "We present data from two studies which clarify the relationship between the responsiveness and validity of instruments designed to measure health status in clinical trials. In a controlled trial of long vs short duration adjuvant chemotherapy for women with Stage II breast cancer, the Breast Cancer Chemotherapy Questionnaire (BCQ) proved valid as a measure of subjective health status and was able to distinguish long vs short arms. Well validated measures of physical and emotional function developed by the Rand Corporation were unable to distinguish between the two groups. The Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group Criteria (ECOG) distinguished the two groups, but failed criteria of clinical sensibility as a measure of subjective health status. In a study of patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) showed small intrasubject variability over time. Gobal ratings of change showed moderate to high correlations with changes in IBDQ score, and patients who reported overall improvement or deterioration showed large changes in IBDQ score. Each of these findings support, in different ways, the reproducibility, validity, and responsiveness of the questionnaire. While the same data can at times bear on both validity and responsiveness, when assessing evaluative instruments it is useful to make a conceptual distinction between the two.",
keywords = "Clinical trials, Quality of life, Reproducibility Sensitivity to change, Responsiveness, Validity",
author = "Guyatt, {Gordon H.} and Deyo, {Richard (Rick)} and Mary Charlson and Levine, {Mark N.} and Alba Mitchell",
year = "1989",
doi = "10.1016/0895-4356(89)90128-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "403--408",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement

T2 - A clarification

AU - Guyatt, Gordon H.

AU - Deyo, Richard (Rick)

AU - Charlson, Mary

AU - Levine, Mark N.

AU - Mitchell, Alba

PY - 1989

Y1 - 1989

N2 - We present data from two studies which clarify the relationship between the responsiveness and validity of instruments designed to measure health status in clinical trials. In a controlled trial of long vs short duration adjuvant chemotherapy for women with Stage II breast cancer, the Breast Cancer Chemotherapy Questionnaire (BCQ) proved valid as a measure of subjective health status and was able to distinguish long vs short arms. Well validated measures of physical and emotional function developed by the Rand Corporation were unable to distinguish between the two groups. The Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group Criteria (ECOG) distinguished the two groups, but failed criteria of clinical sensibility as a measure of subjective health status. In a study of patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) showed small intrasubject variability over time. Gobal ratings of change showed moderate to high correlations with changes in IBDQ score, and patients who reported overall improvement or deterioration showed large changes in IBDQ score. Each of these findings support, in different ways, the reproducibility, validity, and responsiveness of the questionnaire. While the same data can at times bear on both validity and responsiveness, when assessing evaluative instruments it is useful to make a conceptual distinction between the two.

AB - We present data from two studies which clarify the relationship between the responsiveness and validity of instruments designed to measure health status in clinical trials. In a controlled trial of long vs short duration adjuvant chemotherapy for women with Stage II breast cancer, the Breast Cancer Chemotherapy Questionnaire (BCQ) proved valid as a measure of subjective health status and was able to distinguish long vs short arms. Well validated measures of physical and emotional function developed by the Rand Corporation were unable to distinguish between the two groups. The Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group Criteria (ECOG) distinguished the two groups, but failed criteria of clinical sensibility as a measure of subjective health status. In a study of patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) showed small intrasubject variability over time. Gobal ratings of change showed moderate to high correlations with changes in IBDQ score, and patients who reported overall improvement or deterioration showed large changes in IBDQ score. Each of these findings support, in different ways, the reproducibility, validity, and responsiveness of the questionnaire. While the same data can at times bear on both validity and responsiveness, when assessing evaluative instruments it is useful to make a conceptual distinction between the two.

KW - Clinical trials

KW - Quality of life

KW - Reproducibility Sensitivity to change

KW - Responsiveness

KW - Validity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0024373121&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0024373121&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0895-4356(89)90128-5

DO - 10.1016/0895-4356(89)90128-5

M3 - Article

C2 - 2659745

AN - SCOPUS:0024373121

VL - 42

SP - 403

EP - 408

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 5

ER -