Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 3/2015

01-03-2015

Creating meaningful cut-scores for Neuro-QOL measures of fatigue, physical functioning, and sleep disturbance using standard setting with patients and providers

Auteurs: Karon F. Cook, David E. Victorson, David Cella, Benjamin D. Schalet, Deborah Miller

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 3/2015

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
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

To establish clinically relevant classifications of health outcome scores for four Neuro-QOL measures (lower extremity function, upper extremity function, fatigue, and sleep disturbance).

Methods

We employed a modified educational standard-setting methodology to identify cut-scores for symptom severity. Clinical vignettes were developed to represent graduated levels of symptom severity. A clinician panel and a panel of persons with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) were recruited, and, in separate, 1-day meetings, the panelists identified adjacent vignettes they judged to represent the threshold between two levels of severity for a given domain (e.g., threshold between a vignette that indicated “no problems” with sleep and the adjacent one that represented “mild problems” with sleep). Working independently, each panel (PwMS and clinicians) reached consensus on its recommended thresholds for each of the four targeted measures. Cut-scores were defined as the mean location for each pair of threshold vignettes.

Results

PwMS and clinician panels derived identical thresholds for severity levels of lower extremity function and sleep disturbance, but slightly different ones for upper extremity function and fatigue. In every case of divergence, PwMS set higher thresholds for more severe classifications of symptoms (by 0.5 SDs) than did clinicians.

Conclusions

The modified bookmarking method is effective for defining thresholds for symptom severity based on self-reported outcome scores and consensus judgments. Derived cut-scores and severity levels provide an interpretative context for Neuro-QOL scores. Future studies should explore whether these findings can be replicated and evaluate the validity of the classifications compared to external criteria.
vorige artikel Improved statistical analysis of pre- and post-treatment patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): the applicability of piecewise linear regression splines
volgende artikel Mapping FACT-P to EQ-5D in a large cross-sectional study of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Hirtz, D., Thurman, D. J., Gwinn-Hardy, K., Mohamed, M., Chaudhuri, A. R., & Zalutsky, R. (2007). How common are the “common” neurologic disorders? Neurology, 68(5), 326–337.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Hopman, W. M., Coo, H., Edgar, C. M., McBride, E. V., Day, A. G., & Brunet, D. G. (2007). Factors associated with health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 34(2), 160–166.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Miller, D. M., & Allen, R. (2010). Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: Determinants, measurement, and use in clinical practice. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, 10(5), 397–406.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Mitchell, A. J., Benito-Leon, J., Rivera-Navarro, J., & Morales-Gonzalez, J. M. (2004). Quality of life is not favorable for most patients with multiple sclerosis. Archives of Neurology, 61(11), 1807–1808. Author reply 1808.
5.
Kargiotis, O., Paschali, A., Messinis, L., & Papathanasopoulos, P. (2010). Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: Effects of current treatment options. International Review of Psychiatry, 22(1), 67–82.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Miller, D., Rudick, R. A., & Hutchinson, M. (2010). Patient-centered outcomes: Translating clinical efficacy into benefits on health-related quality of life. Neurology, 74(Suppl 3), S24–S35.PubMed
7.
Cella, D., Gershon, R., Lai, J. S., & Choi, S. (2007). The future of outcomes measurement: Item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 133–141.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Gershon, R. C., Cella, D., Fox, N. A., Havlik, R. J., Hendrie, H. C., & Wagster, M. V. (2010). Assessment of neurological and behavioural function: The NIH Toolbox. Lancet Neurology, 9(2), 138–139.CrossRef
9.
10.
Cella, D., Lai, J. S., Nowinski, C. J., Victorson, D., Peterman, A., Miller, D., et al. (2012). Neuro-QOL: Brief measures of health-related quality of life for clinical research in neurology. Neurology, 78(23), 1860–1867.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
11.
Gershon, R. C., Lai, J. S., Bode, R., Choi, S., Moy, C., Bleck, T., et al. (2012). Neuro-QOL: Quality of life item banks for adults with neurological disorders: Item development and calibrations based upon clinical and general population testing. Quality of Life Research, 21(3), 475–486.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
12.
Wilson, I. B., & Cleary, P. D. (1995). Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA, 273(1), 59–65.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York, NY: Macmillian Publishing Company.
14.
Jensen, M. P., Smith, D. G., Ehde, D. M., & Robinsin, L. R. (2001). Pain site and the effects of amputation pain: Further clarification of the meaning of mild, moderate, and severe pain. Pain, 91(3), 317–322.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Paul, S. M., Zelman, D. C., Smith, M., & Miaskowski, C. (2005). Categorizing the severity of cancer pain: Further exploration of the establishment of cutpoints. Pain, 113(1–2), 37–44.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Serlin, R. C., Mendoza, T. R., Nakamura, Y., Edwards, K. R., & Cleeland, C. S. (1995). When is cancer pain mild, moderate or severe? Grading pain severity by its interference with function. Pain, 61(2), 277–284.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zelman, D. C., Dukes, E., Brandenburg, N., Bostrom, A., & Gore, M. (2005). Identification of cut-points for mild, moderate and severe pain due to diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Pain, 115(1–2), 29–36.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zelman, D. C., Smith, M. Y., Hoffman, D., Edwards, L., Reed, P., Levine, E., et al. (2004). Acceptable, manageable, and tolerable days: Patient daily goals for medication management of persistent pain. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 28(5), 474–487.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zelman, D. C., Hoffman, D. L., Seifeldin, R., & Dukes, E. M. (2003). Development of a metric for a day of manageable pain control: Derivation of pain severity cut-points for low back pain and osteoarthritis. Pain, 106(1–2), 35–42.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Given, B., Given, C. W., Sikorskii, A., Jeon, S., McCorkle, R., Champion, V., et al. (2008). Establishing mild, moderate, and severe scores for cancer-related symptoms: How consistent and clinically meaningful are interference-based severity cut-points? Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 35(2), 126–135.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
21.
22.
Buckendahl, C., Smith, R., Impara, J., & Plake, B. (2002). A comparison of Angoff and Bookmark standard setting methods. Journal of Educational Measurement, 39(4), 253–263.CrossRef
23.
Huynh, H. (2010). Psychometric aspects of item mapping for criterion-referenced interpretation and bookmark standard setting. Journal of Applied Measurement, 11(1), 91–98.PubMed
24.
Lewis, D. M., Mitzel, H. C., & Green, D. R. (1996). Standard setting: A bookmark approach. In D. R. Green (Chair), IRT-based standard-setting procedures utilizing behavioral anchoring (symposium), Council of Chief State School Officers National Conference on Large-scale Assessment, Phoenix, AZ.
25.
Cizek, G. J. (1993). Reconsidering standards and criteria. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(2), 93–106.CrossRef
26.
Perie, M. (2005). The Angoff and bookmark methods: Presentation at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. Montreal: National Council on Measurement in Education.
27.
Zieky, M. J., Perie, M., & Livingston, S. A. (2008). Cutscores: A manual for setting standards of performance on educational and occupational tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
28.
Messick, S. (1998). Test validity: A matter of consequence. Social Indicators Research, 45(1–3), 35–44.CrossRef
29.
Amato, M. P., Ponziani, G., Rossi, F., Liedl, C. L., Stefanile, C., & Rossi, L. (2001). Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: The impact of depression, fatigue and disability. Multiple Sclerosis, 7(5), 340–344.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Coleman, C. I., Sidovar, M. F., Roberts, M. S., & Kohn, C. (2013). Impact of mobility impairment on indirect costs and health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e54756.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
31.
Mills, R. J., & Young, C. A. (2011). The relationship between fatigue and other clinical features of multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis, 17(5), 604–612.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Yozbatiran, N., Baskurt, F., Baskurt, Z., Ozakbas, S., & Idiman, E. (2006). Motor assessment of upper extremity function and its relation with fatigue, cognitive function and quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 246(1–2), 117–122.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Cella, D., Choi, S., Garci, A. S., Cook, K. F., Rosenbloom, S., Lai, J.-S., et al. (2014). Setting standards for severity of common symptoms in oncology using the PROMIS item banks and expert judgment. Quality of Life Research. doi:10.​1007/​s11136-014-0732-6.
34.
Cella, D., Choi, S., Rosenbloom, S., Surges, Tatum, D., Garcia, S., et al. (2008). A Novel IRT-based case-ranking approach to derive expert standards for symptom severity (paper presentation), International Society for Quality of Life Research Annual Scientific Meeting. Montevideo, Uruguay.
35.
(NINDS), N. I. o. N. D. a. S. (2010). User manual for the quality of life in neurological disorders (Neuro-QOL) Measures. Version 1.0.
36.
37.
Choi, S. W., Schalet, B. D., Cook, K. F., & Cella, D. (2014). Establishing a common metric for depressive symptoms: Linking BDI-II, CES-D, and PHQ-9 to PROMIS depression. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 513–527.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Schalet, B. D., Cook, K. F., Choi, S. W., & Cella, D. (2014). Establishing a common metric for anxiety symptoms: Linking GAD-7, MASQ, and PANAS to PROMIS anxiety. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 28(1), 88–96.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
39.
40.
Shepard, L. A. (1979). Setting standards. In M. A. Bunda & J. R. Sanders (Eds.), Practices and problems in competency-based measurement (pp. 72–88). Washington, DC: National Council on Measurement in Education.
41.
Lampic, C., & Sjoden, P. O. (2000). Patient and staff perceptions of cancer patients’ psychological concerns and needs. Acta Oncologica, 39(1), 9–22.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Radowsky, J. S., Baines, L., Howard, R. S., Shriver, C. D., Buckenmaier, C. C., I. I. I., & Stojadinovic, A. (2012). Pain ratings by patients and their providers of radionucleotide injection for breast cancer lymphatic mapping. Pain Medicine, 13(5), 670–676.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Basch, E., Iasonos, A., McDonough, T., Barz, A., Culkin, A., Kris, M. G., et al. (2006). Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: Results of a questionnaire-based study. The lancet Oncology, 7(11), 903–909.CrossRefPubMed
44.
McColl, E., Junghard, O., Wiklund, I., & Revicki, D. A. (2005). Assessing symptoms in gastroesophageal reflux disease: How well do clinicians’ assessments agree with those of their patients? American Journal of Gastroenterology, 100(1), 11–18.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1, 141–169.CrossRef
46.
Salander, P., Bergenheim, T., & Henriksson, R. (1996). The creation of protection and hope in patients with malignant brain tumours. Social Science and Medicine, 42(7), 985–996.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Burgess, C., Morris, T., & Pettingale, K. W. (1988). Psychological response to cancer diagnosis–II. Evidence for coping styles (coping styles and cancer diagnosis). Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 32(3), 263–272.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Carver, C. S., Pozo, C., Harris, S. D., Noriega, V., Scheier, M. F., Robinson, D. S., et al. (1993). How coping mediates the effect of optimism on distress: A study of women with early stage breast cancer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 375–390.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Dembo, T., Leviton, G. L., & Wright, B. A. (1956). Adjustment to misfortune; a problem of social-psychological rehabilitation. Artificial Limbs, 3(2), 4–62.PubMed
50.
Cizek, G. J. (2012). An introduction to contemporary standard setting. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards (2nd ed., pp. 3–14). New York, NY: Routledge.
51.
Calvert, M., Draper, H., & Kyte, D. (2014). Patient-reported outcome alert monitoring—reply. JAMA, 311(4), 420–421.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Thombs, B. D., Ells, C., & Black, L. (2014). Patient-reported outcome alert monitoring. JAMA, 311(4), 420.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Deshpande, P. R., Rajan, S., Sudeepthi, B. L., & Abdul Nazir, C. P. (2011). Patient-reported outcomes: A new era in clinical research. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 2(4), 137–144.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
54.
Brettschneider, C., Luhmann, D., & Raspe, H. (2011). Informative value of patient reported outcomes (PRO) in health technology assessment (HTA). GMS Health Technology Assessment, 7, Doc01.
Metagegevens
Titel
Creating meaningful cut-scores for Neuro-QOL measures of fatigue, physical functioning, and sleep disturbance using standard setting with patients and providers
Auteurs
Karon F. Cook
David E. Victorson
David Cella
Benjamin D. Schalet
Deborah Miller
Publicatiedatum
01-03-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 3/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0790-9

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2015

Quality of Life Research 3/2015 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

The relationship of health-related quality of life and treatment outcome during inpatient treatment of depression

Response Shift and Missing Data

RespOnse Shift ALgorithm in Item response theory (ROSALI) for response shift detection with missing data in longitudinal patient-reported outcome studies

Brief Communication

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Italian Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire (PIDAQ)

OriginalPaper

Content verification of the EORTC QLQ-C30/EORTC QLQ-BR23 with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

Review

Quality of life and dietary changes among cancer patients: a systematic review

OriginalPaper

Experience-based VAS values for EQ-5D-3L health states in a national general population health survey in China