Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Distilling the essence of appraisal: a mixed methods study of people with multiple sclerosis

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

An Erratum to this article was published on 19 March 2016

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to identify the essential parts of the Quality of Life (QOL) Appraisal Profile that capture the most important differences in the ways that people with multiple sclerosis respond to patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. This process will enable the eventual development of a more practical, less resource-intensive version of the QOL Appraisal Profile to facilitate its use in clinical research and practice.

Methods

This is a secondary analysis of longitudinal PRO data (n = 859) of participants in the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis registry. Following the Rapkin and Schwartz (Health Qual Life Outcomes 2(1):14, 2004) model, we computed a “standard QOL model,” and then multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and discriminant function (DF) analysis to identify patterns of appraisal measures associated with group differences in response to each QOL outcome.

Results

The “standard QOL model” explains a moderate amount of variance (i.e., 15–17 %) in physical functioning and disease-specific disability, and very little variance in mental health functioning. The MANOVAs identified the appraisal variables that mattered by PRO, and the DF analysis included 10–16 of the 83 potential appraisal variables in two DFs per outcome that distinguished groups with better, average, and worse expected scores, as well as groups with better-than-expected, as-expected, and worse-than-expected scores. The dominant appraisal parameters were more similar between the generic and disease-specific measure of physical functioning and disability, respectively, than between the mental health measure and the former two measures.

Conclusions

The practical implications of this work all revolve around a fundamental recommendation: Whenever one measures QOL, one should measure appraisal.

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. Ahmed, S., et al. (2012). The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: Implications for clinical practice and health care policy. Medical Care, 50(12), 1060–1070.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Rapkin, B. D., 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), 10.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Schwartz, C. E., et al. (2013). Fluctuations in appraisal over time in the context of stable and non-stable health. Quality of Life Research.

  6. Schwartz, C. E., & Rapkin, B. D. (2012). Understanding appraisal processes underlying the thentest: A mixed methods investigation. Quality of Life Research, 21(3), 381–388.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 

  8. Morganstern, B. A., et al. (2011). The psychological context of quality of life: A psychometric analysis of a novel idiographic measure of bladder cancer patients’ personal goals and concerns prior to surgery. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9, 10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 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  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Jobe, J. B. (2003). Cognitive psychology and self-reports: Models and methods. Quality of Life Research, 12, 219–227.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Richards, T. A., et al. (2000). Response shift: A coping perspective. In C. E. Schwartz & M. A. G. Sprangers (Eds.), Adaptation to changing health: Response shift in quality-of-life research (pp. 25–36). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Rapkin, B. D., et al. (1994). Development of the idiographic functional status assessment: A measure of the personal goals and goal attainment activities of people with AIDS. Psychology and Health, 9, 111–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Palys, T. S., & Little, B. R. (1983). Perceived life satisfaction and the organization of personal project systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1221–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kahneman, D., et al. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The Day Reconstruction Method. Science, 306, 1776–1780.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. (2009). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61(4), 305–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Suls, J. M., & Miller, R. L. (1977). Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fayers, P. M., et al. (2007). Implicit self-comparisons against others could bias quality of life assessments. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(10), 1034–1039.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. NARCOMS. (2013). North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis (NARCOMS) Registry. http://narcoms.org/.

  20. Marrie, R. A., et al. (2007). Validation of the NARCOMS Registry: Diagnosis. Multiple Sclerosis, 13, 770–775.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Marrie, R. A., et al. (2007). Disparities in the management of multiple sclerosis-related bladder symptoms. Neurology, 68(23), 1971–1978.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schwartz, C. E., Bode, R. K., & Vollmer, T. (2012). The symptom inventory disability-specific short-forms for multiple sclerosis: Reliability and factor structure. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93(9), 1629–1636.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schwartz, C. E., et al. (2012). The symptom inventory disability-specific short-forms for multiple sclerosis: Construct validity, responsiveness, and interpretation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93(9), 1617–1628.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hays, R. D., Sherbourne, C. D., & Mazel, R. M. (1995). User’s manual for the Medical Outcome Study (MOS) core measures of health-related quality of life. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Schwartz, C. E., Vollmer, T., & Lee, H. (1999). Reliability and validity of two self-report measures of impairment and disability for MS. North American Research Consortium on Multiple Sclerosis Outcomes Study Group. Neurology, 52(1), 63–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hohol, M. J., Orav, E. J., & Weiner, H. L. (1995). Disease steps in multiple sclerosis: A simple approach to evaluate disease progression. Neurology, 45, 251–255.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Corp., I. (2012). IBM SPSS statistics for windows. IBM Corp: Armonk, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Matthews, W. B. (Ed.). (1991). McAlpine’s multiple sclerosis (2nd ed.). New York: Churchill Livingstone.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hays, R. D., et al. (2009). Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Quality of Life Research, 18, 873–880.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors had full access to the original data. This work was funded in part by a Grant from the Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute (PCORI #ME-1306-00781) to Dr. Rapkin. Part of the data collected for this work was provided in the context of a Consortium of MS Centers/Global MS Registry Visiting Scientist Fellowship to Dr. Schwartz, which was supported through a Foundation of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers Grant from EMD Serono, Inc. CMSC/Global MS Registry is supported by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and its Foundation. We thank Timothy Vollmer, MD, for his help and support over the course of this project; Gary Cutter, Ph.D., Stacey Cofield, Ph.D., and Rita Bode, Ph.D., for data management services early in the project; Jei Li for data analytic support on a later draft of the manuscript; and Ruth Ann Marrie, M.D., Ph.D., and Robert Fox, M.D., for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carolyn E. Schwartz.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rapkin, B.D., Schwartz, C.E. Distilling the essence of appraisal: a mixed methods study of people with multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res 25, 793–805 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1119-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1119-z

Keywords

Navigation