Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research

2014 Edition
| Editors: Alex C. Michalos

Ceiling Effect

  • Olatz GarinEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_296

Definition

The ceiling effect is said to occur when participants’ scores cluster toward the high end (or best possible score) of the measure/instrument. The opposite is the floor effect.

Description

In some fields (biology, physiology, etc.), the ceiling effect refers to the point at which an independent variable no longer has an effect on a dependent variable, when a kind of saturation has been reached (e.g., the phenomenon in which a drug reaches its maximum effect, so that increasing the drug dosage does not increase its effectiveness) (Baker, 2004).

In statistics/psychometrics, the term ceiling effect is used to describe how subjects in a study have scores that are at or near the possible upper limit (Everitt, 2002), so that variance is not measured or estimated above a certain level (Cramer & Howitt, 2005). In the sphere of quality of life, this limit is usually not defined by the highest score, but by the highest degree of achievement of the measured concept. Therefore, the...

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

References

  1. Austin, P. C. (2002). A comparison of methods for analyzing health-related quality-of-life measures. Value in Health, 5, 329–337.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, H. (2004). Illustrated medical dictionary. Lotus Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cramer, D., & Howitt, D. L. (2005). The SAGE dictionary of statistics: A practical resource for students in the social sciences (3rd ed.). London/Thousand Oaks: Sage, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  4. Everitt, B. S. (2002). The Cambridge dictionary of statistics (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: CUP.Google Scholar
  5. Huang, I. C., Frangakis, C., Atkinson, M. J., Willke, R. J., Leite, W. L., Vogel, W. B., & Wu, A. W. (2008). Addressing ceiling effects in health status measures: A comparison of techniques applied to measures for people with HIV disease. Health Services Research, 43, 327–339.Google Scholar
  6. McHorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995). Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: Are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research, 4, 293–307.Google Scholar
  7. Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34–42.Google Scholar
  8. van den Berg, S. M., Glas, C. A., & Boomsma, D. I. (2007). Variance decomposition using IRT measurement model. Behavior Genetics, 37, 604–616.Google Scholar
  9. Vogt, W. P. (2005). Dictionary of statistics & methodology: A nontechnical guide for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage, New Delhi.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IMIM Hospital del Mar Medical Research InstituteBarcelonaSpain