Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Understanding appraisal processes underlying the thentest: a mixed methods investigation

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 06 July 2013

Abstract

Aims

Mixed methods investigated the cognitive processes reflected in retrospective pretest (thentest) discrepancy scores [i.e., recalibration response shift (RS)].

Methods

People with human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune disease syndrome (HIV/AIDS) (n = 521) were interviewed at baseline and 6 months using the Quality of Life (QOL) Appraisal Profile, the Rand-36, General Health thentest, and recall items. Open-ended appraisal questions were coded, and factor analyses reduced the data. Ipsative (based on the then-minus-pretest) and normative (based on regression residuals) discrepancy scores were compared. Hypothesis testing related to recall bias and relationships among appraisal parameters and ipsative discrepancies, after covariate adjustment.

Results

Coded frame of reference themes were distinct from experience sampling, standards of comparison, and combinatory algorithm. There was convergence between the ipsative and normative discrepancy scores (r = 0.30), but the former were associated with more appraisal changes and goal-related appraisals than the latter. Thentest effect sizes (ES) were larger than standard change scores, even controlling for recall bias. Multivariate models including appraisal parameters explained 9% more variance over the standard (unadjusted for RS) model.

Conclusions

Ipsative and normative discrepancy scores measure distinct constructs, represent different configurations of appraisal change, and are not invalidated or explained by recall bias. The thentest does not imply recalibration alone but rather a host of health- and self-care-related concerns.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sprangers, M. A., & Schwartz, C. E. (1999). Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: A theoretical model. Social Science and Medicine, 48(11), 1507–1515.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Schwartz, C. E., & Sprangers, M. A. (1999). Methodological approaches for assessing response shift in longitudinal health-related quality-of-life research. Social Science and Medicine, 48(11), 1531–1548.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Schwartz, C. E., et al. (1999). An evaluation of a psychosocial intervention for survivors of childhood cancer: Paradoxical effects of response shift over time. Psychooncology, 8(4), 344–354.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mayo, N., Scott, S. C., & Ahmed, S. (2009). Case management poststroke did not induce response shift: The value of residuals. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, 1148–1156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Razmjou, H., et al. (2006). Response shift in outcome assessment in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American, 88(12), 2590–2595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Visser, M. R. M., Oort, F. J., & Sprangers, M. A. G. (2005). Methods to detect response shift in quality of life data: A convergent validity study. Quality of Life Research, 14, 629–639.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schwartz, C. E., et al. (2011). Response shift in patients with multiple sclerosis: An application of three statistical techniques. Quality of Life Research (revision under review).

  8. Schwartz, C. E. (2010). Applications of response shift theory and methods to participation measurement: A brief history of a young field. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91(9, Suppl 1), S38–S43.

  9. Sprangers, M. A., et al. (1999). Revealing response shift in longitudinal research on fatigue—the use of the thentest approach. Acta Oncologica, 38(6), 709–718.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Visser, M., Oort, F. J., & Sprangers, M. (2003). Assessing response shift in QL: The thentest and a structural equation modeling approach compared. Quality of Life Research, 12(7), 45.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Nolte, S., et al. (2009). A test of measurement invariance fails to support the application of then-test questions as a remedy to response shift bias. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, 1173–1180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schwartz, C. E., & Sprangers, M. A. G. (2010). Guidelines for improving the stringency of response shift research using the then-test. Quality of Life Research, 19, 455–464.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schwartz, C. E., et al. (2004). Exploring response shift in longitudinal data. Psychology and Health, 19(1), 51–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ahmed, S., et al. (2004). Response shift influenced estimates of change in health-related quality of life poststroke. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57(6), 561–570.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Norman, G. (2003). Hi! How are you? Response shift, implicit theories and differing epistemologies. Quality of Life Research, 12(3), 239–249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rapkin, B. D., & Schwartz, C. E. (2004). Toward a theoretical model of quality-of-life appraisal: Implications of findings from studies of response shift. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2(1), 14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schwartz, C. E., & Rapkin, B. D. (2004). Reconsidering the psychometrics of quality of life assessment in light of response shift and appraisal. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Swartz, R.J., et al. (2011). The king’s foot of patient-reported outcomes: Current practices and new developments for the measurement of change. Quality of Life Research, 20, 1159–1167.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Taminiau-Bloem, E. F. (2010). Understanding changes in quality of life in cancer patients: A cognitive interview approach, in medical psychology (p. 220). Amsterdam: Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rapkin, B. A., et al. (2008). Beyond satisfaction: Using the dynamics of care assessment to better understand patients’ experiences in care. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6(20).

  21. VanderZee, K. I., et al. (1996). Psychometric qualities of the RAND 36-item health survey 1.0: A multidimensional measure of general health status. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 3(2), 104–122.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Li, Y., & Rapkin, B. (2009). Classification and regression tree analysis to identify complex cognitive paths underlying quality of life response shifts: A study of individuals living with HIV/AIDS. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, 1138–1147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bloem, E. F., et al. (2008). Clarifying quality of life assessment: Do theoretical models capture the underlying cognitive processes? Quality of Life Research, 17, 1093–1102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schwartz, C. E., et al. (1998). Self-reported coping behavior in health and disease: Assessment with a card sort game. Behavioral Medicine, 24(1), 41–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Schwartz, C. E., & Daltroy, L. H. (1999). Learning from unreliability: The importance of inconsistency in coping dynamics. Social Science and Medicine, 48(5), 619–631.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Emily Samaha and Maya Kahn-Woods for their assistance with coding the qualitative data from the QOL Appraisal Profile, and Brian Quaranto for his assistance on tables and figures included in this manuscript. We are also grateful to Dr. Yuelin Li for his help in creating summary scores using the QOL Appraisal Profile, which were used in the analyses presented here, to Shilpa Patel for helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript, and to Laura Ryniker for help in manuscript preparation. Funding this work was provided in part by the New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute (US Health Resources and Services Administration grant: 2X07 HA 0025-17 to Dr. Rapkin).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carolyn E. Schwartz.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0466-x.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schwartz, C.E., Rapkin, B.A. Understanding appraisal processes underlying the thentest: a mixed methods investigation. Qual Life Res 21, 381–388 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0023-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0023-4

Keywords

Navigation