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 4/2017

08-10-2016

When global rating of change contradicts observed change: Examining appraisal processes underlying paradoxical responses over time

Auteurs: Carolyn E. Schwartz, Victoria E. Powell, Bruce D. Rapkin

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 4/2017

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

Aims

Interpreting change scores is challenging when patients’ global rating of change (GRC) scores contradict their observed change scores. We examine appraisal processes associated with having GRC-observed change contradictions.

Methods

This secondary analysis of longitudinal multiple sclerosis (MS) registry data examined predictors of GRC scores in the whole sample (n = 858). Logistic modeling then examined predictors of membership in one of two paradoxical subgroups (n = 525): (a) Worsened GRC with unchanged observed Rand-12 Mental Component scores (MCS) (Symptom-Maximizers, n = 171) versus no change GRC among stable MCS subsample; and (b) same GRC with declined observed MCS scores (Symptom-Minimizers, n = 84) versus declining GRC among declining MCS subsample. Independent variables were cognitive appraisal processes from the Quality of Life (QOL) Appraisal Profile.

Results

GRC scores were more strongly associated with appraisal processes than with change in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (R 2 = 11 and 2 %, respectively). Symptom-Maximizers tended to focus on MS-related experiences and emphasize big changes; over time, they decreasingly defined QOL in terms of independence, increasingly focused on their MS, and increasingly compared themselves to doctor’s predictions (Pseudo R 2 = 0.20). In contrast, Symptom-Minimizers tended not to recall recent episodes; over time, they focused increasingly on goals related to living situation and emphasized long-term concerns (Pseudo R 2 = 0.25).

Conclusions

Appraisal explains more variance in GRC scores than do changes in PROs. People whose GRC assessment contradicts their observed change can be characterized by distinct cognitive appraisal processes reflecting response shift.
vorige artikel Testing whether patients with diabetes and healthy people perceive the meaning of the items in the Persian version of the SF-36 questionnaire similarly: a differential item functioning analysis
volgende artikel Oral health-related quality of life in youth receiving cleft-related surgery: self-report and proxy ratings
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Sprangers, M. A. G., Moinpour, C. M., Moynihan, T. J., Patrick, D. L., Revicki, D. A., & The Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting G. (2002). Assessing meaningful change in quality of life over time: A users’ guide for clinicians. In Mayo Clinic Proceedings (Vol. 77, pp. 561–571).
2.
Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., Norman, G. R., & The Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting G. (2002). Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. In Mayo Clinic Proceedings (Vol. 77, pp. 371–383).
3.
Revicki, D. A., Erickson, P. A., Sloan, J. A., Dueck, A., Guess, H., & Santanello, N. C. (2007). Interpreting and reporting results based on patient-reported outcomes. Value Health. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t], 10(Suppl 2), S116–S124.
4.
Haywood, K., Garratt, A., Jordan, K., Dziedzic, K., & Dawes, P. (2002). Disease-specific, patient-assessed measures of health outcome in ankylosing spondylitis: reliability, validity and responsiveness. Rheumatology, 41(11), 1295–1302.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Terwee, C. B., Dekker, F. W., Wiersinga, W. M., Prummel, M. F., & Bossuyt, P. M. M. (2003). On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: Guidelines for instrument evaluation. Quality of Life Research, 12, 349–363.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Sloan, J. A., Cella, D., Frost, M. H., Guyatt, G., & Osoba, D. (2003). Quality of life III: Translating the science of quality-of-life assessment into clinical practice-an example-driven approach for practicing clinicians and clinical researchers. Clinical Therapeutics, 25(Suppl D), D1–D5.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Kamper, S. J., Maher, C. G., & Mackay, G. (2009). Global rating of change scales: A review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, 17(3), 163–170.CrossRef
8.
Fitzpatrick, R., Ziebland, S., Jenkison, C., & Mowat, A. (1993). Transition questions to assess outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology, 32(9), 807–811.CrossRef
9.
Kamper, S. J., Ostelo, R. W., Knol, D. L., Maher, C. G., de Vet, H. C., & Hancock, M. J. (2010). Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology., 63(7), 760766e1.CrossRef
10.
Cella, D., Hahn, E. A., & Dineen, K. (2002). Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: differences between improvement and worsening. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 207–221.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Heesen, C., Böhm, J., Reich, C., Kasper, J., Goebel, M., & Gold, S. (2008). Patient perception of bodily functions in multiple sclerosis: Gait and visual function are the most valuable. Multiple Sclerosis.
12.
Kvam, A. K., Wisloff, F., & Fayers, P. M. (2010). Minimal important differences and response shift in health-related quality of life; a longitudinal study in patients with multiple myeloma. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Rapkin, B. D., & Schwartz, C. E. (2004). Toward a theoretical model of quality-of-life appraisal: Implications of findings from studies of response shift. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2(1), 14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Rapkin, B. D., Ryniker, L., Morgenstern, B., & Schwartz, C. E. (2011). User manual for the quality of life appraisal profile. Concord, MA: DeltaQuest Foundation, Inc.
15.
Li, Y., & Rapkin, B. (2006). HIV/AIDS patients’ quality of life appraisal depends on their personal meaning of quality of life and frame of reference. Quality of Life Research, 15, A-36.CrossRef
16.
Schwartz, C. E., Quaranto, B. R., Rapkin, B. D., Healy, B. C., Vollmer, T., & Sprangers, M. A. G. (2014). Fluctuations in appraisal over time in the context of stable and non-stable health. Quality of Life Research, 23(1), 9–19.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Morganstern, B. A., Bernard, B., Dalbagni, G., Shabsigh, A., & Rapkin, B. (2011). The psychological context of quality of life: a psychometric analysis of a novel idiographic measure of bladder cancer patients’ personal goals and concerns prior to surgery. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 9(10).
18.
Finkelstein, J., Kallen, M. A., Quaranto, B., Rapkin, B. D., & Schwartz, C. E. (2012). Appraisal processes in people awaiting spine surgery: Investigating quality of life using mixed methods [Abstract]. Quality of Life Research, 20, 106.
19.
Schwartz, C. E., & Rapkin, B. D. (2015). Appraisal assessment in patient-reported outcome research: Methods for uncovering the personal context and meaning of quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 24, 13–14.
20.
21.
Rapkin, B. D., & Schwartz, C. E. (2016). Distilling the essence of appraisal: A mixed methods study of people with multiple sclerosis. Quality of Life Research, 25(4), 793–805, 7–10.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Schwartz, C. E., Vollmer, T., & Lee, H. (1999). Reliability and validity of two self-report measures of impairment and disability for MS. North American Research Consortium on Multiple Sclerosis Outcomes Study Group. Neurology, 52(1), 63–70.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Motl, R. W., & Snook, E. M. (2008). Confirmation and extension of the validity of the Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale-12 (MSWS-12). Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 268, 69–73.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Marrie, R. A., & Goldman, M. (2007). Validity of performance scales for disability assessment in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 13(9), 1176–1182.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Hohol, M. J., Orav, E. J., & Weiner, H. L. (1995). Disease steps in multiple sclerosis: A simple approach to evaluate disease progression. Neurology, 45, 251–255.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Learmonth, Y. C., Motl, R. W., Sandroff, B. M., Pula, J. H., & Cadavid, D. (2013). Validation of patient determined disease steps (PDDS) scale scores in persons with multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurology, 13(1), 1.CrossRef
27.
Johnson, J. A., & Maddigan, S. L. (2004). Performance of the RAND-12 and SF-12 summary scores in type 2 diabetes. Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 449–456.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Lee, A., Oakley Browne, M., & Villanueva, E. (2008). Consequences of using SF-12 and RAND-12 when examining levels of well-being and psychological distress. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 42(4), 315–323.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Vilagut, G., Forero, C. G., Pinto-Meza, A., Haro, J. M., de Graaf, R., Bruffaerts, R., et al. (2013). The mental component of the short-form 12 health survey (SF-12) as a measure of depressive disorders in the general population: results with three alternative scoring methods. Value in Health, 16(4), 564–573.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Forero, C. G., Vilagut, G., Adroher, N. D., Alonso, J., & Investigators, E. M. (2013). Multidimensional item response theory models yielded good fit and reliable scores for the Short Form-12 questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(7), 790–801.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41(5), 582–592.PubMed
32.
Norman, G. R., Wyrwich, K. W., & Patrick, D. W. (2007). The mathematical relationship among different forms of responsiveness coefficients. Quality of Life Research, 16(8), 815–822.CrossRefPubMed
33.
StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 14.(2016). College station, TX: StataCorp LP.
34.
Matthews, W. B. (Ed.). (1991). McAlpine’s Multiple sclerosis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone.
35.
Ross, M. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychological Review, 96(2), 341–357.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
When global rating of change contradicts observed change: Examining appraisal processes underlying paradoxical responses over time
Auteurs
Carolyn E. Schwartz
Victoria E. Powell
Bruce D. Rapkin
Publicatiedatum
08-10-2016
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 4/2017
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1414-3

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2017

Quality of Life Research 4/2017 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Effects of horticulture therapy on nursing home older adults in southern Taiwan

OriginalPaper

Dating violence, quality of life and mental health in sexual minority populations: a path analysis

OriginalPaper

Health-related quality of life in patients with serious non-specific symptoms undergoing evaluation for possible cancer and their experience during the process: a mixed methods study

OriginalPaper

Mindful creativity matters: trajectories of reported functioning after severe traumatic brain injury as a function of mindful creativity in patients’ relatives: a multilevel analysis

OriginalPaper

Assessment of health-related quality of life, mental health status and psychological distress based on the type of pharmacotherapy used among patients with depression

OriginalPaper

Impact of neurocognitive deficits on patient–proxy agreement regarding health-related quality of life in low-grade glioma patients