Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 73–75 | Cite as

Responsiveness to change: an aspect of validity, not a separate dimension

  • R. D. Hays
  • D. Hadorn
Controversy

Abstract

Assessment of health-related quality of life is accelerating in naturalistic observational studies, clinical trials, and clinical practice. Some researchers have argued that the ability of a quality of life instrument to detect clinically important changes over time, “responsiveness”, is a distinct psychometric property from the measure's reliability and validity. We discuss the important implications of this argument and counter that responsiveness is actually one indication of a measure's validity.

Key words

Reliability responsiveness validity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    NelsonEC, BerwickDM. The measurement of health status in clinical practice. Med Care 1989; 27: S77-S90.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    RubensteinLV, CalkinsDR, GreenfieldS, et al. Health status assessment for elderly patients: Report of the Society of General Internal Medicine task force on health assessment. J Am Geriat Soc 1988; 37: 562–569.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    WellsKB, StewartAL, HaysRD, et al. The functioning and well-being of depressed patients: Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. J Am Med Assoc 1989; 262: 914–919.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE. Methods of validating health measures. In: Stewart AL, Ware JE, eds. Measuring Functioning and Well-being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, in press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    StewartAL. Psychometric considerations in functional status instruments. In: LipkinM ed. Functional Status Measurement in Primary Care. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990: 3–26.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    GuyattG, WalterS, NormanG. Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chron Dis 1987; 40: 171–178.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    SpitzerRL, FleissJL. A re-analysis of the reliability of psychiatric diagnosis. Br J Psychiat 1974; 125: 341–347.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    StewartAL, HaysRD, WareJE. The MOS short-form general health survey: Reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care 1988: 26: 724–735.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    BindmanAB, KeaneD, LurieN. Measuring health changes among severely ill patients: The floor phenomenon. Med Care 1990; 28: 1142–1152.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    GuyattG, DeyoRA, CharlsonM, et al. Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: A clarification. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 403–408.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    BoyleMH, TorranceGW. Developing multiattribute health indexes. Med Care 1984; 22: 1045–1057.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ChambersLW. Physical and emotional function of primary care patients: Scientific requirements for the measurement of functional health status. J Am Med Assoc 1983; 249: 3353–3355.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ThorndikeRL. Reliability. In: JacksonDN, MessickS, eds. Problems in Human Assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967: 217–240.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Rapid Communications of Oxford Ltd 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. D. Hays
    • 1
  • D. Hadorn
    • 1
  1. 1.Social Policy DepartmentRANDSanta MonicaUSA

Personalised recommendations