Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methodologies of PD Assessment: Scales

  • Reference work entry
Drug Discovery and Evaluation: Methods in Clinical Pharmacology

  • 2090 Accesses

Abstract

Measurement and scaling are fundamental processes in the empirical sciences and especially in drug research and development. Both topics are related as well to the description, characterization, or quantification of objects and processes within an experiment or clinical study, as to the outcome of some intervention. Measurement and scaling are two aspects of the quantification of an object or process, the first may be merely regarded as the use of an existing scale to quantify the object, the latter, scaling, can be regarded as “… the assignment of objects to numbers according to a rule” (Stevens 1951). So we can conclude that measurement is only possible, if some scale is defined. The use of the word “scale” in literature is not unique. In the present paper, we will use scale synonymously for a questionnaire or psychological test, regardless of who is responding to it, whether the questionnaire or test is used by experts, physicians, patients, relatives, or caregivers.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

  • Acquadro C, Jambon B, Ellis D, Marquis P (1996) Language and translation issues. In: Spilker B (ed) Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, pp 575–585

    Google Scholar 

  • Agresti A (1996) An introduction to categorical data analysis. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • AMDP&CIPS (eds) (1990). Ratingscales for psychiatry. European Edition. Weinheim: Beltz Test GmbH

    Google Scholar 

  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education (1999) Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Asadi-Lari M, Tamburini M, Gray D (2004) Patients’ needs, satisfaction, and health related quality of life: towards a comprehensive model. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2:32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bland JM, Altman DG (1996) Measurement error and correlation coefficients. British Journal of Medicine 313:41–42

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Borg I, Groenen P (2005) Modern multidimensional scaling: theory and applications, 2nd edn. New York: Springer; 2nd edn. Washington, DC: American Council on Education

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20(1):37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1968) Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. In: Psychol Bull 213–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1977) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences, revth edn. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (2005) Reflection Paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. EMEA, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach LJ (1971) Test validation. In: Thorndike RL (ed) Educational measurement. American Council on Education, Washington (DC), pp 443–507

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach LJ (2004) My current thoughts on Coefficient Alpha and successor procedures. Educ Psychol Meas 64:391–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE (1955) Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull 52:281–302

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • EMEA. ( March 2007). Innovative drug development approaches. EMEA/127318/2007. London: EMEA

    Google Scholar 

  • Food and Drug Administration (2000) Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR Part 11) Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures. http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/Part11/

  • Food and Drug Administration (2009). Guidance for industry. patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002 http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm

  • Fleiss JL (1971) Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 76(5):378–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleiss JL (1981) Statistical methods for rates and proportions, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, pp 38–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleiss JL, Cohen J (1973) The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. In: Educational and Psychological Measurement., pp 613–619

    Google Scholar 

  • Food and Drug Administration (February 2006). Guidance for industry. patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Silver Spring, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilford JP (1946) New standards for test evaluation. Educ Psychol Meas 6(5):427–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton M (1960) A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 23:56–62

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kendell R, Jablensky A (2003) Distinguishing between the validity and utility of psychiatric diagnoses. Am J Psychiatry 160(1):4–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lienert GA and Raatz V (1998) Testaufbau und Testanalyse. Beltz PVU 1998 (6. Aufl.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Little RJA, Rubin DB (1987) Statistical analysis with missing data. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick S (1989) Validity. In: Linn R (ed) Educational measurement, 3rd edn. American Council on Education and Macmillan, New York, pp 13–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Middel B, van Sonderen E (2002) Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research. Int J Integ Care 2:2002

    Google Scholar 

  • NASA report: ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/reports/1999/MCO_report.pdf.

  • Obuchowski NA (2005) ROC analysis. Am J Roentgenol 184:364–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Osgood CE, Suci G, Tannenbaum P (1957) The measurement of meaning. University of Illinois Press, Urbana

    Google Scholar 

  • Patrick DL et al (2007) Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health 10(Supplement 2):S125–S137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • APA (American Psychiatric Association) (2000) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders – DSM-IV-TR (4th edn, Text Revision). American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasch G (1960) Probabilistic models for some intelligence and achievement tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research (Expanded edition), 1980. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Rost J Lehrbuch Testtheorie – Testkonstruktion. Huber, Bern 2004 (2. Aufl.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens SS (1951) Mathematics, measurement and psychophysics. In: Stevens SS (ed) Handbook of experimental psychology. Wiley, New York, pp 1–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson B (ed) (2003) Score reliability: contemporary thinking on reliability issues. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner RR et al (2007) Patient-reported outcomes: instrument development and selection issues. Value Health 10(Supplement 2):S86–S93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • WHO. http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/

  • Wilke RJ, Burke LB, Erickson P (2004) Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved labels. Control Clinical Trials 25:535–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Scientific Methodology & Evaluation, Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH, Eckenheimer Landstr. 100, 60318, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Roman Görtelmeyer

Authors
  1. Roman Görtelmeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roman Görtelmeyer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Bohl Str. 28, 73430, Aalen, Germany

    Hans Gerhard Vogel

  2. Sanofi Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Industriepark Hoechst, Building G877, R&D Metabolism and PK Germany, 65926, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Jochen Maas

  3. Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH, Eckenheimer Landstraβe 100, 60318, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Alexander Gebauer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this entry

Cite this entry

Görtelmeyer, R. (2011). Methodologies of PD Assessment: Scales. In: Vogel, H.G., Maas, J., Gebauer, A. (eds) Drug Discovery and Evaluation: Methods in Clinical Pharmacology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89891-7_27

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation