Why are we weighting? A critical examination of the use of item weights in a health status measure
References (29)
- et al.
The Nottingham Health Profile: A useful tool for epidemiologists?
Soc. Sci. Med.
(1987) - et al.
The Nottingham Health Profile: An analysis of its sensitivity in differentiating illness groups
Soc. Sci. Med.
(1988) - et al.
Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires
(1987) - et al.
Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists
J. R. Coll. Gen. Pract.
(1985) - et al.
Measuring Health Status
(1986) - et al.
The Sickness Impact Profile: conceptual formulation and methodology for the development of a health status measure
Int. J. Hlth Serv.
(1976) - et al.
The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure
Med. Care
(1981) Standardisation of comparative health status measures: using scales developed in America in an English speaking country
- et al.
Measuring health status in arthritis: The Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales
Arth. Rheum.
(1980) - et al.
The dimensions of outcomes: the Health Assessment Questionnaire, disability and pain scales
J. Rheum.
(1982)
Measurement of the quality of life: Development of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)
The Cornell Medical Index and Health Questionnaire as a diagnostic tool
J. Am. med. Ass.
Weighting the seriousness of perceived health problems using Thurstone's method of paired comparisons
Int. J. Epidem.
Law of comparative judgement
Psychol. Rev.
Cited by (43)
Do oral lesions associated with HIV affect quality of life?
2008, Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and EndodontologyCitation Excerpt :in relation to OHIP. These findings are also in line with research done by Jenkinson19 and Streiner and Norman,20 who examined other instruments (Nottingham Health Profile) and concluded that, in general, weighting contributes little to a measure/instrument that consists of 40 or more items but may have an effect on measures with fewer than 40 items. The relatively low impacts scored for all 7 dimensions in group 2 provides evidence that the goal of oral health management for HIV-positive patients should be the control/elimination of oral lesions associated with HIV infection.
Longer response scales improved the acceptability and performance of the Nottingham Health Profile
2006, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyCitation Excerpt :For this study, we could not use this algorithm, because Thurstone weights were not available for the new response formats. Because weighted summation is not clearly better than a simple average [8,26], we computed the six NHP dimension scores as the average of available items, rescaled between 0 (worst possible score) and 100 (best possible score), when at least half of items were nonmissing [5,6]. We compared the four groups of respondents in terms of age, gender, length of stay, education, and nationality.
A comparison of 4 questionnaires to measure fatigue in postpoliomyelitis syndrome
2004, Archives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationCitation Excerpt :It must be mentioned that most of the NHP energy category scores reported in the literature were calculated from weighted item scores.37 However, the importance of weighting is under discussion,38,39 and the median score of 33 found in our study is well within the range of values reported in the literature.2,11–13,36 Analysis of concurrent validity showed low correlations (range, .43–.68) between the total scores of all pairs of questionnaires, which indicates that little of the variation in score of 1 questionnaire was explained by the variation in score of another questionnaire.
Development of Disease-Specific Quality of Life Measurement Tools
2003, Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgeryDeveloping the Vascular Quality of Life Questionnaire: A new disease-specific quality of life measure for use in lower limb ischemia
2001, Journal of Vascular Surgery