Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
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.
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.
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).
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.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Agresti, A. (2010). Analysis of ordinal categorical data. New Jersey: Wiley. 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
Davidson, A. C., & Hinkley, D. V. (1997). Bootstrap methods and their application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Dimitrov, D. M., & Rumrill, P. D. (2003). Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of change. Work, 20, 159–165. PubMed
Kampen, J., & Swyngedouw, M. (2000). The ordinal controversy revisited. Quality & Quantity, 34, 87–102. CrossRef
Marcus-Roberts, H. M., & Roberts, F. S. (1987). Meaningless statistics. Journal of Educational Statistics, 12, 383–394. CrossRef
McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press.
Merbitz, C., Morris, J., & Grip, J. C. (1989). Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 70, 308–312. PubMed
Rogosa, D., Brandt, David, & Zimowski, M. (1982). A growth curve approach to the measurement of change. Psychological Bulletin, 92(3), 726–748. CrossRef
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
Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677–680. CrossRef
Svensson, E. (2000). Comparison of the quality of assessments using continuous and discrete ordinal rating scales. Biometrical Journal, 42(4), 417–434. CrossRef
- A new indicator for the measurement of change with ordinal scores
Mario Luiz Pinto Ferreira
Renan Moritz V. R. Almeida
Ronir Raggio Luiz
- Springer Netherlands