Guidelines for secondary analysis in search of response shift
- 634 Downloads
Response shift methods have developed substantially in the past decade, with a notable emphasis on model-based methods for response shift detection that are appropriate for the analysis of existing data sets. These secondary data analyses have yielded useful insights and motivated the continued growth of response shift methods. However, there are also challenges inherent to the successful use of secondary analysis for response shift detection. Based on our experience with a number of secondary analyses, we propose guidelines for the optimal implementation of secondary analysis for detecting response shift.
We review the definition of response shift and recent advances in response shift theory. We describe current statistical methods that have been developed for or applied to response shift detection. We then discuss lessons learned when using these methods to test specific hypotheses about response shift in existing data and of the features of a data set that could guide early decision-making about undertaking a secondary analysis.
A checklist is provided that includes guidelines for secondary analyses focusing on: (1) selecting an appropriate data set to investigate response shift; (2) prerequisites of data sets and their preparation for analysis; (3) managing missing data; (4) confirming that the data fit the requirements and assumptions of the selected response shift detection technique; (5) model fit evaluation; (6) interpreting results/response shift effect sizes; and (7) comparing findings across methods.
The guidelines-checklist has the potential to stimulate rigorous and replicable research using existing data sets and to assist investigators in assessing the appropriateness and potential of a data set and model-based methods for response shift research.
KeywordsResponse shift Analytic Methods Guidelines
Ideas from this manuscript were previously presented as part of a symposium presentation at the International Society for Quality of Life (ISOQOL) in October 2012, in Budapest, Hungary. This work grew out of collaborations among members of the ISOQOL Response Shift Special Interest Group and was funded in part by a Catalyst grant award from the Canadian Institute of Health Research (Grant #103630), and a Career Award (Grant #13870) from the Fond de Recherche en Sante du Quebec to Dr. Ahmed. Drs. Sawatzky, Sajobi, Mayo, and Lix are supported by an operating grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Lisa Lix is supported by a Manitoba Research Chair. We are grateful for assistance with manuscript preparation from Brian R. Quaranto, B.S.
- 5.Bernhard, J., Hurny, C., Maibach, R., Herrmann, R., & Laffer, U. (1999). Quality of life as subjective experience: Reframing of perception in patients with colon cancer undergoing radical resection with or without adjuvant chemotherapy. Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK). Annals of Oncology, 10(7), 775–782.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Ahmed, S., Mayo, N. E., Wood-Dauphinee, S., Hanley, J. A., & Cohen, S. R. (2005). The structural equation modeling technique did not show a response shift, contrary to the results of the then test and the individualized approaches. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(11), 1125–1133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Rijken, M., Komproe, I. H., Ros, W. J. G., Winnubst, J. A. M., & van Heesch, N. C. A. (1995). Subjective well-being of elderly women: Conceptual differences between cancer patients, women suffering from chronic ailments and healthy women. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34, 289–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Rees, J., MacDonagh, R., Waldron, D., & O’Boyle, C. (2004). Measuring quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. European Journal of Palliative Care, 11(3), 104–106.Google Scholar
- 35.Schwartz, C. E., & Rapkin, B. D. (2011). Understanding appraisal processes underlying the thentest: A mixed methods investigation. Quality of Life Research, 21(3), 381–388. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-0023-4.
- 38.Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1993). Classification and regression trees. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
- 44.Li, Y., & Schwartz, C. E. (2011). Using classification and regression tree to examine evidence of quality of life response shift in patients with multiple sclerosis. Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1543–1553.Google Scholar
- 45.Boucekine, M., L’Mouaci, R., Flores, P. M., Butzkueven, H., Baumstarck, K., Ghattas, B., et al. (2012). Understanding response shift in multiple sclerosis patients: application of the Random Forest method. [Abstract]. Quality of Life Research, 21(S1), 32–33.Google Scholar
- 46.Lix, L. M., Sajobi, T. T., Sawatzky, R., Liu, J., Mayo, N. E., Huang, Y., et al. (2012). Relative importance measures for reprioritization response shift. Quality of Life Research. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0198-3.
- 47.Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 50.King-Kallimanis, B. L., Oort, F. J., Visser, M. R., & Sprangers, M. A. (2009). Structural equation modeling of health-related quality-of-life data illustrates the measurement and conceptual perspectives on response shift. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(11), 1157–1164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 55.King-Kallimanis, B. L., Oort, F. J., Nolte, S., Schwartz, C. E., & Sprangers, M. A. (2011). Using structural equation modeling to detect response shift in performance and health-related quality of life scores of multiple sclerosis patients. Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1527–1540. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9844-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 56.Ahmed, S., Sawatzky, R., Levesque, J. F., Ehrmann-Feldman, D., & Schwartz, C. E. (2012). Minimal Evidence of Response Shift in the Absence of a Catalyst. Quality of Life Research, 21(Supplement 1), 2–3.Google Scholar
- 60.Sawatzky, R., Ratner, P. A., Kopec, J. A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2011). Latent variable mixture models: a promising approach for the validation of patient reported outcomes. Quality of Life Research. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9976-6.
- 61.Hancock, G. R., & Samuelsen, K. M. (2008). Advances in latent variable mixture models. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub.Google Scholar
- 62.Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- 63.Goodkin, D. E., Reingold, S., Sibley, W., Wolinsky, J., McFarland, H., Cookfair, D., et al. (1999). Guidelines for clinical trials of new therapeutic agents in multiple sclerosis: Reporting extended results from phase III clinical trials. National Multiple Sclerosis Society Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials of New Agents in Multiple Sclerosis. [Practice Guideline]. Annals of Neurology, 46(1), 132–134.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 64.Goodkin, D. E., Ross, J. S., Medendorp, S. V., Konecsni, J., & Rudick, R. A. (1992). Magnetic resonance imaging lesion enlargement in multiple sclerosis. Disease-related activity, chance occurrence, or measurement artifact? [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t]. Archives of Neurology, 49(3), 261–263.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 66.Finkelstein, J. A., Quaranto, B. R., & Schwartz, C. E. (2013). Threats to the internal validity of spinal surgery outcome assessment: Recalibration response shift or implicit theories of change? Applied Quality of Life Research. (in press).Google Scholar
- 67.Sawatzky, R., Gadermann, A., Ratner, P. A., Zumbo, B. D., & Lix, L. (2012). Identifying individuals with inflammatory bowel disease who experienced response shift: A latent class analysis? Quality of Life Research, 21(Supplement 1), 33.Google Scholar
- 68.Gandhi, P. K., Ried, L. D., Huang, I. C., Kimberlin, C. L., & Kauf, T. L. (2012). Assessment of response shift using two structural equation modeling techniques. Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0171-1.
- 69.Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Assumptions and limitations of multivariate statistical methods. In Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
- 70.Fairclough, D. L. (2010). Design and analysis of quality of life studies in clinical trials (2 ed.). Chapman & Hall/CRC Interdisciplinary Statistics Series). New York: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
- 72.Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, B. D. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 80.Steyerberg, E. W., Harrell, F. E. J., Borsboom, G. J. J. M., Eijkemans, M. J. C., Vergouwe, Y., & Habbema, J. D. F. (2001). Internal validation of predictive models: Efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54, 774–781.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 81.Mayo, N. E., Scott, S. C., & Lix, L. (2012). Caring for a spouse with stroke: True change in QOL and response shift. Quality of Life Research, 21(Supplement 1), 2–3.Google Scholar
- 83.Ahmed, S., Mayo, N., Scott, S., Kuspinar, A., & Schwartz, C. (2011). Using latent trajectory analysis of residuals to detect response shift in general health among patients with multiple sclerosis article. Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1555–1560. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-0005-6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 84.Schwartz, C. E., Sajobi, T., Lix, L., Quaranto, B. R., & Finkelstein, J. A. (2013). Changing values, changing outcomes: The influence of reprioritization response shift on outcome assessment after spine surgery. Quality of Life Research, (in press). doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0377-x.