Quality of Life Research

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 239–249 | Cite as

Hi! How are you? Response shift, implicit theories and differing epistemologies

  • Geoffrey Norman
Article

Abstract

Measures of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) occupy a continuum, from highly standardized econometric methods such as the time tradeoff and standard gamble to individualized global measures. Each has its vocal adherents, each involves different assumptions about the nature and interpretation of HRQL, and each has potential advantages and disadvantages. In this paper, I begin by exploring two theories which attempt to explain how people make assessments of health over time: 'response shift' and the 'implicit theory of change' model. I show that the theories, which are based on different views of the underlying cognitive processes, make opposite predictions about the validity of prospective and retrospective judgments. I examine the broader issue of individualized vs. standardized questions, and discuss a fundamental epistemological difference which places the current discussion in a broader philosophical context. I propose that a partial resolution may arise from a more careful consideration of the goals of HRQL assessment in a particular situation.

Implicit theory Quality of life Response shift 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Schwartz CE, Sprangers MAG. Methodological approaches for assessing response shift in longitudinal health related quality of life research. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 1531–1548.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Postulart D, Adang EMM. Response shift and adaptation in chronically ill patients. Med Decis Making 2000; 20: 186–193.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Linton SJ, Melin L. The accuracy of remembering chronic pain. Pain 1982; 13: 281–285.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ahmed S, Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Hanley J. Response shift in the assessment of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 2001; 10: 204.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Warneke RB, Ferrans CE, Johnson TP, et al. Measuring quality of life in culturally diverse populations. JNCI 1996; 20: 29–38.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ross M. Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychol Rev 1989; 96: 341–347.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moos RH, Leiderman DB. Toward a menstrual cycle symptom typology. J Psychosom Res 1978; 22: 31–40.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bargh JA, Chartrand TL. The unbearable automaticity of being. Amer Psychol 1999; 54: 462–479.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Juniper IF, Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Ferrie PJ, Griffith LE, Townsend M. Measuring quality of life in children with asthma. Qual Life Res 1996; 5: 35–46.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Juniper IF, Guyatt GH, Ferrie PJ, Griffith LE. Measuring quality of life in asthma. Am Rev Respir Dis 1993; 147: 832–838.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Allison PJ, Locker D, Feine JS. Quality of life: A dynamic construct. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45: 221–230.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Howard GS, Schmeck RR, Bray JH. Internal invalidity in studies employing self-report instruments: A suggested remedy. J Educ Measur 1979; 16: 129–135.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sprangers M, Hoogstraten J. Pretesting effects in retrospective pretest-posttest designs. J Appl Psych 1989; 74: 265–272.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Barr RD, Zhang Y, Wang Q. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive classification system: Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care 1996; 34: 702–722.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Hershey J, et al. Do nonpatients underestimate the quality of life associated with chronic health conditions because of a focusing illusion? Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 190–199.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Russell LB, Siegel JE, Daniels N, Gold MR, Mandelbaltt JS. Cost effectiveness analysis as a guide to resource allocation in health: roles and limitations. In: Gold MR, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC (eds), Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York/Oxford UK. Oxford University Press, 1996; 3–34.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fayers PM, Hand DJ. Causal variables, indicator variables and measurement scales: An example from quality of life. J Roy Statist Soc 2002; 165: 1–21.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sprangers MAG, Schwartz CE. Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 1507–1515.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Torrance GW. Social preference for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 1976; 10: 129–136.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    DeJong G, Batavia AI. Sociatal duty and resource allocation for persons with sever traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehab 1989; 4: 1–12.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barofsky I. The role of cognitive equivalence in studies of health-related quality-of-life assessments. Med Care 2000; 38: II-125–II 129.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    O'Boyle CA, McGee H, Haickey A, O'Malley K, Joyce CRB. Individual quality of life in patients undergoing hip replacement. Lancet 1992; 339: 1088–1091.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ruta DA, Garratt AM, Leng M, Russell IT, MacDonald LM. A new approach to the measurement of quality of life: The Patient Generated Inventory (PGI) Med Care 1994; 32; 1109–1126.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Linten TC, Beaumont JG, Kenealy PM, Murrell RC. Quality of Life (QoL) in severely disabled multiple sclerosis patients' Comparison of three QoL measures using multidimensional scaling. Qual Life Res 2001; 10: 371–378.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Testa MA. Interpretation of quality-of-life outcomes: issues that affect magnitude and meaning. Med Care 2000; 38: II166–74.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks CA: SAGE Publications, 1994; 105–117.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cronbach LJ. The two disciplines of scientific psychology. Amer Psychol 1957; 12: 671–684.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: The lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50(8): 869–879.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geoffrey Norman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Clinical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations