Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Philosophical perspectives on response shift

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

Abstract

Purpose

This paper brings a philosophical perspective to response shift research with the aim of raising new critical questions, clarifying some of the concepts employed, and providing a philosophical context within which to critically examine the assumptions that shape the field.

Methods

This critical analysis aims to reveal assumptions and clarify concepts and/or definitions that undergird methodological practice and theory.

Results

We bring attention to the distinction of weak and strong evaluations, and the implications and consequences for construct validity and for designing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). We then consider the epistemology of PROMs, suggesting that they are better suited to a social constructivist approach than a scientific realist one. Finally, we examine the relationship between disability and response shift, arguing that in at least some cases, response shifts should not be understood as ‘measurement bias’.

Conclusion

Our analysis reveals various concerns and further questions related to the role that substantive values play in the assessment of QoL. It also draws response shift into a wider arena, with broader issues of interpretation, self-evaluation, the meaning of the ‘good life’, and the status and legitimacy we accord to various scientific methods.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gadamer, G. -H. (1996). On the enigmatic character of health. In G.-H. Gadamer (Ed.), The enigma of health (trans: Gaiger, J., Walker, N.) (pp. 103–116). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  2. Westerman, M. J., Hak, T., Sprangers, M. A., Groen, H. J., van der Wal, G., & The, A. M. (2008). Listen to their answers! Response behaviour in the measurement of physical and role functioning. Quality of Life Research, 17(4), 549–558.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Taylor, C. (1985). What is human agency? In C. Taylor (Ed.), Human agency and language philosophical papers I (pp. 15–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kolhberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice (Essays on Moral Development Volume 1). New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Calman, K. C. (2004). Evolutionary ethics: can values change. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(4), 366–370.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Barofsky, I. (2012). Quality: Its definition and measurement as applied to the medically ill. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  10. McClimans, L. (2011). Interpretability, validity, and the minimum important difference. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 32(6), 389–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Edgar, A. (1995). Weighting health states and strong evaluation. Bioethics, 9(3), 244–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2003). Health measurement scales a practical guide to their development and use (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mallinson, S. (2002). Listening to respondents: A qualitative assessment of the short-form 36 health status questionnaire. Social Science and Medicine, 54(1), 11–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. McClimans, L. (2010). A theoretical framework for patient-reported outcome measures. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 31(3), 225–240.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ogden, J. (2002). Health and the construction of the individual. East Sussex: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Westerman, M. J., Sprangers, M. A., Groen, H. J., van der Wal, G., & Hak, T. (2007). Small-cell lung cancer patients are just ‘a little bit’ tired. Response shift and self-presentation in the measurement of fatigue. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 853–861.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  19. World Health Organization. (2001). The international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva: WHO.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Schwartz, C. E., Andresen, E. M., Nosek, M. A., & Krahn, G. L. (2007). Response shift theory: Important implications for measuring quality of life in people with disability. Archive of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88(4), 529–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sprangers, M. A. G., & 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 

  22. Amundson, R. (2010). Quality of life, disability, and hedonic psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40(4), 374–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Oort, F., Mechteld, J., Visser, R. M., & Sprangers, M. A. G. (2009). Formal definitions of measurement bias and explanation bias clarify measurement and conceptual perspectives on response shift. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(11), 1126–1137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chang, H. (2004). Inventing temperature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Van Fraassen, B. (2008). Scientific representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Ubel, P. A., Peeters, Y., & Smith, D. (2010). Abandoning the language of ‘‘response shift’’: A plea for conceptual clarity in distinguishing scale recalibration from true changes in quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 465–471.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sprangers, M. A. G., & Schwartz, C. E. (2010). Do not throw the baby out with the bath water: Build on current approaches to realize conceptual clarity. Response to Ubel, Peeters, and Smith. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 477–479.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank the Response Shift Think Tank Working Group who instigated and supported the work on this paper. The Response Shift Think Tank Working Group is comprised of 23 social scientists, clinicians, and/or methodologists who began their collaboration in a three-day conference in September 2010 in Cambridge, MA, USA. The members of this working group are actively collaborating on a number of manuscripts and symposia presentations at professional conferences to develop and expand the theoretical, methodological, and applied foundations of response shift research in QOL research. Its members include (in alphabetical order): Sara Ahmed, Ph.D., (McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada); Ruth Barclay-Goddard, Ph.D., (University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada); Michael Brundage, M.D., (Queen’s University, Ontario, Canada); Angela Carlson, Ph.D., (Providence College, Providence, RI, USA); David Eton, Ph.D., (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA); Joel Finkelstein, M.D., (University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada); Michael Kallen, Ph.D., M.P.H.,(The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA); Nancy Mayo, Ph.D., M.Sc., B.Sc.(PT), (McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada); Collen McCarthy, M.D., (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA); Alex Michalos, Ph.D., (Brandon University, Brandon, British Columbia, Canada); Bradley Morgenstern, M.D., (Albert Einstein School of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA); Sandra Nolte, Ph.D., (Deakin University, Australia); Margaret Nosek, Ph.D., (Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA); Frans Oort, Ph.D., (University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands); Brian Quaranto, B.Sc., (DeltaQuest Foundation, Concord, MA, USA); Bruce D. Rapkin, Ph.D., (Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA); Bryce Reeve, Ph.D., (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA); Lena Ring, Ph.D., (Uppsala University, Sodertalje, Sweden; AstraZeneca, Sodertalje, Sweden); Carolyn E. Schwartz, Sc.D, (DeltaQuest Foundation, Inc., Concord, MA, USA; and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA); Mirjam A.G. Sprangers, Ph.D., (Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands); David Wasserman, Ph.D., (Yeshiva University, New York, NY, USA); Marjan Westerman, Ph.D., (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA

    Leah McClimans

  2. Disability Policy Unit, Department of Health Sciences and Health Policy, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland

    Jerome Bickenbach

  3. Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Marjan Westerman

  4. Department of Philosophy, Providence College, Providence, RI, 02918, USA

    Licia Carlson

  5. Center for Ethics, Yeshiva University, New York, NY, 10033, USA

    David Wasserman

  6. DeltaQuest Foundation, Inc, Concord, MA, USA

    Carolyn Schwartz

  7. Departments of Medicine and Orthopaedic Surgery, Tufts University Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Carolyn Schwartz

Authors
  1. Leah McClimans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jerome Bickenbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marjan Westerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Licia Carlson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David Wasserman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Carolyn Schwartz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leah McClimans.

Additional information

This study was conducted on behalf of the Response Shift Think Tank Working Group.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McClimans, L., Bickenbach, J., Westerman, M. et al. Philosophical perspectives on response shift. Qual Life Res 22, 1871–1878 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0300-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0300-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation