Top

Gepubliceerd in:

2020 | OriginalPaper | Hoofdstuk

3. Stap 3: waarmee wil je meten?

Auteurs : Corelien Kloek, Harriët Wittink

Uitgeverij: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Samenvatting

In de vorige hoofdstukken zijn de stappen waarom je wilt meten en wat je wilt meten beschreven. Om de juiste meetinstrumenten te selecteren (stap 7) is het belangrijk om eerst inzicht te hebben in de verschillende typen meetinstrumenten. Meetinstrumenten kunnen we op verschillende manieren indelen. Je kunt ze indelen op basis van het doel van het meten (diagnostisch, prognostisch, evaluatief) of op basis van het soort van meten (generiek, ziekte-, domein- of patiënt-specifiek). Vervolgens kunnen we onderscheid maken in verschillende methoden van meten. Variërend van vragenlijsten, observatiemetingen, performancetesten en metingen tot het gebruiken van apps en wearables.

vorige hoofdstuk Stap 2: wat wil je meten?

volgende hoofdstuk Stap 4: waar ga je meetinstrumenten zoeken?

Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–83.

Varni JW, Seid M, Kurtin PS. PedsQL^TM 4.0: Reliability and validity of the pediatric quality of life inventory^TM version 4.0 generic core scales in healthy and patient populations. Med Care [Internet]. 2001;39(8):800–12.

Fayers P, Bottomley A; EORTC Quality of Life Group, Quality of Life Unit. Quality of life research within the EORTC-the EORTC QLQ-C30. European organisation for research and treatment of cancer. Eur J Cancer [Internet]. 2002;38 Suppl 4:S125–33. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11858978.

Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist. 1969;9(3):179–86.CrossRef

Hobart J, Lamping D, Fitzpatrick R, Riazi A, Thompson A. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain. 2001;124(Pt 5):962–73.CrossRef

Slok AHM, Bemelmans TCH, Kotz D, Van der Molen T, Kerstjens HAM, In ’t Veen JCCM, et al. The assessment of burden of COPD (ABC) scale: a reliable and valid questionnaire. COPD. 2016;13(4):431–8.

Chren MM, Lasek RJ, Quinn LM, Mostow EN, Zyzanski SJ. Skindex, a quality-of-life measure for patients with skin disease: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Invest Dermatol. 1996;107(5):707–13.CrossRef

Farrar JT, Young JP Jr, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. 2001;94(2):149–58.

Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(2):185–90.CrossRef

10.

Wijnhoven HAH, Schilp J, Van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren MAE, De Vet HCW, Kruizenga HM, Deeg DJH, et al. Development and validation of criteria for determining undernutrition in community-dwelling older men and women: the short nutritional assessment questionnaire 65+. Clin Nutr. 2012;31(3):351–8.

11.

Snaith RP, Zigmond AS. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986;292(6516):344.CrossRef

12.

Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional Evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–5.

13.

Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR, Nathan J, Piehl-Baker L. Clinical gait assessment in the neurologically impaired. Reliability and meaningfulness. Phys Ther. 1984;64(1):35–40.CrossRef

14.

Bradley C, Todd C, Gorton T, Symonds E, Martin A, Plowright R. The development of an individualized questionnaire measure of perceived impact of diabetes on quality of life: the ADDQoL. Qual Life Res. 1999;8(1–2):79–91.CrossRef

15.

Vincent KA, Carr AJ, Walburn J, Scott DL, Rose MR. Construction and validation of a quality of life questionnaire for neuromuscular disease (INQoL). Neurology. 2007;68(13):1051–7.CrossRef

16.

Law M, Baptiste S, McColl M, Opzoomer A, Polatajko H, Pollock N. The Canadian occupational performance measure: an outcome measure for occupational therapy. Can J Occup Ther. 1990;57(2):82–7.CrossRef

17.

Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Koke AJ, Lindeman E, van der Heijden GJ, Regtop W, et al. A patient-specific approach for measuring functional status in low back pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1999;22(3):144–8.CrossRef

18.

Stevens A, Köke A, Van der Weijden T, Beurskens A. The development of a patient-specific method for physiotherapy goal setting: a user-centered design. Disabil Rehabil [Internet]. 2018;40(17):2048–55. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28504014.

19.

Nugter MA, Hermens MLM, Robbers S, Van Son G, Theunissen J, Engelsbel F. Use of outcome measurements in clinical practice: How specific should one be? Psychother Res [Internet]. 2019 Jul 4 [cited 2019 Jun 26];29(4):432–44. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29199522.

20.

Flokstra-de Blok BMJ, Van Der Velde JL, Vlieg-Boerstra BJ, Oude Elberink JNG, DunnGalvin A, Hourihane JO, et al. Health-related quality of life of food allergic patients measured with generic and disease-specific questionnaires. Allergy [Internet]. 2010 Feb 1 [cited 2019 Jun 26];65(8):1031–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20121759.

21.

Terwee CB, Crins MHP, Boers M, De Vet HCW, Roorda LD. Validation of two PROMIS item banks for measuring social participation in the Dutch general population. Qual Life Res [Internet]. 2019 Jan 10;28(1):211–20. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11136-018-1995-0.

22.

Kyte DG, Calvert M, Van der Wees PJ, Ten Hove R, Tolan S, Hill J. An introduction to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in physiotherapy. Physiotherapy. 2015;101(2):119–25.CrossRef

23.

Nelson E, Wasson J, Kirk J, Keller A, Clark D, Dietrich A, et al. Assessment of function in routine clinical practice: description of the COOP Chart method and preliminary findings. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(Suppl 1):69S.

24.

Whelan P, Reddy L, Andrews T. Patient satisfaction rating scales v. patient-related outcome and experience measures. Psychiatrist. 2011;35(1):32–3.

25.

Rohrer JE, Young R, Sicola V, Houston M. Overall self-rated health: a new quality indicator for primary care. J Eval Clin Pract [Internet]. 2007 Feb [cited 2019 Jun 26];13(1):150–3. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17286738.

26.

Melzack R. The McGill Pain Questionnaire: major properties and scoring methods. Pain [Internet]. 1975 Sep [cited 2019 Jun 26];1(3):277–99. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1235985.

27.

Van Dalen-Kok AH, Achterberg WP, Rijkmans WE, Tukker-van Vuuren SA, Delwel S, De Vet HC, et al. Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition (PAIC): content validity of the Dutch version of a new and universal tool to measure pain in dementia. Clin Interv Aging. 2018;13:25–34.CrossRef

28.

Van Dijk M, De Boer JB, Koot HM, Tibboel D, Passchier J, Duivenvoorden HJ. The reliability and validity of the COMFORT scale as a postoperative pain instrument in 0 to 3-year-old infants. Pain. 2000;84(2–3):367–77.CrossRef

29.

Beekman E, Mesters I, Gosselink R, Klaassen MPM, Hendriks EJM, Van Schayck OCP, et al. The first reference equations for the 6-minute walk distance over a 10 m course: Table 1. Thorax [Internet]. 2014 Sep [cited 2019 Jun 26];69(9):867–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24764113.

30.

Jackson A, Langford NJ. The criterion-related validity of the sit and reach test: replication and extension of previous findings. Res Q Exerc Sport [Internet]. 1989;60(4):384–7. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02701367.1989.10607468.

31.

Herman T, Giladi N, Hausdorff JM. Properties of the ‘Timed Up and Go’ test: more than meets the eye. Gerontology [Internet]. 2011;57(3):203–10. Available from: https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/314963.

32.

Berg KO, Wood-Dauphinee SL, Williams JI, Maki B. Measuring balance in the elderly: validation of an instrument. Can J Public Health [Internet]. 83 Suppl 2:S7–11. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1468055.

33.

Range of Monitor App [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jun 6]. Available from: https://www.rangeofmonitor.nl/.

34.

Hudl Technique App [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jun 6]. Available from: https://www.hudl.com/.

35.

Keogh JWL, Cox A, Anderson S, Liew B, Olsen A, Schram B, et al. Reliability and validity of clinically accessible smartphone applications to measure joint range of motion: a systematic review. Müller J, editor. PLoS One [Internet]. 2019 May 8 [cited 2019 Jun 26];14(5):e0215806. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31067247.

36.

Minute Walk Test App [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jun 6].

37.

Dunn J, Runge R, Snyder M. Wearables and the medical revolution. Per Med [Internet]. 2018 Sep [cited 2019 Jun 26];15(5):429–48. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30259801.

38.

Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med [Internet]. 1996;29(6):602–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8773720.

Titel: Stap 3: waarmee wil je meten?
Auteurs: Corelien Kloek
Harriët Wittink
Uitgeverij: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Boek: Meten in de praktijk
Print ISBN: 978-90-368-2458-3

Elektronisch ISBN: 978-90-368-2459-0

Copyright: 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-368-2459-0_3

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Samenvatting

Log in om toegang te krijgen