Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 8/2013

01-10-2013

A new indicator for the measurement of change with ordinal scores

Auteurs: Mario Luiz Pinto Ferreira, Renan Moritz V. R. Almeida, Ronir Raggio Luiz

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 8/2013

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Background

Studies on how to better measure change have been published at least since the third decade of the last century, but no general indicator or strategy of measurement is currently agreed upon. The aim of this study is to propose a new indicator, the indicator of positive change, as an option for the assessment of change when ordinal scores are used in pretest and posttest designs.

Methods

The basic idea is to measure the proportion of possible (positive) change inside a group that can be attributed to an intervention. The approach is based on the joint distribution of the before and after scores (differences), represented by the cells (i, j) of a contingency table m × m (m is the number of classes of the ordinal measurement scale; i and j are the lines and columns of the table, respectively). By convention, higher classes are the most unfavorable on the scale such that subjects that improve “migrate” from the higher to the lower classes as a result of an intervention and vice versa.

Results

The introduced indicator offers a new strategy for the analysis of change when dealing with repeated measurements of the same subject, assuming that the measured variable is ordinal (e.g., clinician-rating scales).

Conclusion

The presented approach is easily interpretable and avoids the problems that arise, for instance, in those cases where a large concentration of high/low scores is present at the baseline.
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Agresti, A. (2010). Analysis of ordinal categorical data. New Jersey: Wiley.CrossRef Agresti, A. (2010). Analysis of ordinal categorical data. New Jersey: Wiley.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Katz, J. N., & Wright, J. G. (2001). A taxonomy for responsiveness. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54, 1204–1217.PubMedCrossRef Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Katz, J. N., & Wright, J. G. (2001). A taxonomy for responsiveness. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54, 1204–1217.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Chen, M. K., & Yang, G. L. (1979). A quantitative index for evaluating patient care with longitudinal data. International Journal of Epidemiology, 8(3), 265–271.PubMedCrossRef Chen, M. K., & Yang, G. L. (1979). A quantitative index for evaluating patient care with longitudinal data. International Journal of Epidemiology, 8(3), 265–271.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Cohen, M. E. (2001). Analysis of ordinal dental data: Evaluation of conflicting recommendations. Journal of Dental Research, 80(1), 309–313.PubMedCrossRef Cohen, M. E. (2001). Analysis of ordinal dental data: Evaluation of conflicting recommendations. Journal of Dental Research, 80(1), 309–313.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Christensen, L., & Mendoza, J. L. (1986). A method of assessing change in a single subject: An alteration of the RC index. Behavior Therapy, 17, 305–308.CrossRef Christensen, L., & Mendoza, J. L. (1986). A method of assessing change in a single subject: An alteration of the RC index. Behavior Therapy, 17, 305–308.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Davidson, A. C., & Hinkley, D. V. (1997). Bootstrap methods and their application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Davidson, A. C., & Hinkley, D. V. (1997). Bootstrap methods and their application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Dimitrov, D. M., & Rumrill, P. D. (2003). Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of change. Work, 20, 159–165.PubMed Dimitrov, D. M., & Rumrill, P. D. (2003). Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of change. Work, 20, 159–165.PubMed
8.
go back to reference Husted, J. A., Cook, R. J., Farewell, V. T., & Gladman, D. D. (2000). Methods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53, 459–468.PubMedCrossRef Husted, J. A., Cook, R. J., Farewell, V. T., & Gladman, D. D. (2000). Methods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53, 459–468.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kampen, J., & Swyngedouw, M. (2000). The ordinal controversy revisited. Quality & Quantity, 34, 87–102.CrossRef Kampen, J., & Swyngedouw, M. (2000). The ordinal controversy revisited. Quality & Quantity, 34, 87–102.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Kemp, S., & Grace, R. C. (2010). When can information from ordinal scale variables be integrated? Psychological METHODS, 15(4), 398–412.PubMedCrossRef Kemp, S., & Grace, R. C. (2010). When can information from ordinal scale variables be integrated? Psychological METHODS, 15(4), 398–412.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Knapp, T. R. (1990). Treating ordinal scales as interval scales: An attempt to resolve the controversy. Nursing Research, 39, 121–123.PubMedCrossRef Knapp, T. R. (1990). Treating ordinal scales as interval scales: An attempt to resolve the controversy. Nursing Research, 39, 121–123.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Marcus-Roberts, H. M., & Roberts, F. S. (1987). Meaningless statistics. Journal of Educational Statistics, 12, 383–394.CrossRef Marcus-Roberts, H. M., & Roberts, F. S. (1987). Meaningless statistics. Journal of Educational Statistics, 12, 383–394.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press. McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press.
14.
go back to reference Merbitz, C., Morris, J., & Grip, J. C. (1989). Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 70, 308–312.PubMed Merbitz, C., Morris, J., & Grip, J. C. (1989). Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 70, 308–312.PubMed
15.
go back to reference Michell, J. (2009). The psychometrician’s fallacy: Too clever by half? British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62, 41–55.PubMedCrossRef Michell, J. (2009). The psychometrician’s fallacy: Too clever by half? British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62, 41–55.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632.PubMedCrossRef Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Rogosa, D., Brandt, David, & Zimowski, M. (1982). A growth curve approach to the measurement of change. Psychological Bulletin, 92(3), 726–748.CrossRef Rogosa, D., Brandt, David, & Zimowski, M. (1982). A growth curve approach to the measurement of change. Psychological Bulletin, 92(3), 726–748.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Sonn, U., & Svensson, E. (1997). Measures of individual and group changes in ordered categorical data: Application to the ADL staircase. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 29, 233–242.PubMed Sonn, U., & Svensson, E. (1997). Measures of individual and group changes in ordered categorical data: Application to the ADL staircase. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 29, 233–242.PubMed
19.
go back to reference Sprangers, M. A. G., Moinpour, C. M., Moynihan, T. J., et al. (2002). Assessing meaningful change in quality of life over time: A user’s guide for clinicians. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77, 561–571.PubMedCrossRef Sprangers, M. A. G., Moinpour, C. M., Moynihan, T. J., et al. (2002). Assessing meaningful change in quality of life over time: A user’s guide for clinicians. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77, 561–571.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677–680.CrossRef Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677–680.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Svensson, E. (2000). Comparison of the quality of assessments using continuous and discrete ordinal rating scales. Biometrical Journal, 42(4), 417–434.CrossRef Svensson, E. (2000). Comparison of the quality of assessments using continuous and discrete ordinal rating scales. Biometrical Journal, 42(4), 417–434.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Stucki, G., Daltroy, L., Katz, J. N., Johannesson, M., & Liang, M. H. (1996). Interpretation of change scores in ordinal clinical scales and health status measures: The whole may not equal the sum of the parts. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49(7), 711–717.PubMedCrossRef Stucki, G., Daltroy, L., Katz, J. N., Johannesson, M., & Liang, M. H. (1996). Interpretation of change scores in ordinal clinical scales and health status measures: The whole may not equal the sum of the parts. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49(7), 711–717.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Terwee, C. B., Dekker, F. W., Wiersinga, W. M., Prummel, F. M., & Bossuyt, P. M. M. (2003). On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: Guidelines for instrument evaluation. Quality of Life Research, 12, 349–362.PubMedCrossRef Terwee, C. B., Dekker, F. W., Wiersinga, W. M., Prummel, F. M., & Bossuyt, P. M. M. (2003). On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: Guidelines for instrument evaluation. Quality of Life Research, 12, 349–362.PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Zou, G. Y. (2005). Quantifying responsiveness of quality of life measures without an external criterion. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1545–1552.PubMedCrossRef Zou, G. Y. (2005). Quantifying responsiveness of quality of life measures without an external criterion. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1545–1552.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
A new indicator for the measurement of change with ordinal scores
Auteurs
Mario Luiz Pinto Ferreira
Renan Moritz V. R. Almeida
Ronir Raggio Luiz
Publicatiedatum
01-10-2013
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 8/2013
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0288-2

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2013

Quality of Life Research 8/2013 Naar de uitgave