Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 59, Issue 5 , Pages 503-511 , May 2006

Recall bias did not affect perceived magnitude of change in health-related functional status

  • Berrie Middel

      Affiliations

    • Department of Health Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 196, 9700 AD Groningen, The Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +31-50-3636504; fax: +31-50-3633059.
    • ,
  • Heike Goudriaan

      Affiliations

    • Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, Leiden, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Mathieu de Greef

      Affiliations

    • Institute of Human Movement Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Roy Stewart

      Affiliations

    • Department of Health Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 196, 9700 AD Groningen, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Eric van Sonderen

      Affiliations

    • Northern Center for Healthcare Research, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • J. Bouma

      Affiliations

    • Northern Center for Healthcare Research, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Mike de Jongste

      Affiliations

    • Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

,Accepted 30 August 2005.

References 

  1. Fischer D, Stewart AL, Bloch DA, Lorig K, Laurent D, Holman H. Capturing the patient's view of change as a clinical outcome measure. JAMA. 1999;282:1157–1163
  2. Ziebland S. Measuring changes in health status. In:  Jenkinson C editors. Measuring health and medical outcomes. London: UCL Press; 1994;
  3. Mahler DA, Weinberg DH, Wells CK, Feinstein AR. The measurement of dyspnea: contents, interobserver agreement, and physiologic correlates of two new clinical indexes. Chest. 1984;85:751–758
  4. Osoba D. Interpreting the meaningfulness of change in health-related quality of life scores: lessons from studies in adults. Int J Cancer Suppl. 1999;12:132–137
  5. Middel B, Stewart R, Bouma J, Van Sonderen E, van den Heuvel WJA. How to validate clinically important change in health-related functional status: Is the magnitude of the effect size consistently related to magnitude of change as indicated by a global question rating?. J Eval Clin Pract. 2001;7:399–410
  6. Ziebland S, Fitzpatrick R, Jenkinson C, Mowat A, Mowat A. Comparison of two approaches to measuring change in health status in rheumatoid arthritis: the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and modified HAQ. Ann Rheum Dis. 1992;51:1202–1205
  7. Emery CF, Blumenthal JA. Perceived change among participants in an exercise program for older adults. Gerontologist. 1990;30:516–521
  8. Middel B, de Greef M, de Jongste MJL, Crijns HJGM, Stewart R, van den Heuvel WJA. Why don't we ask patients with coronary heart disease directly how much they have changed after treatment?. J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 2002;22:47–52
  9. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 2nd ed.. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995;
  10. Kempen GIJM, Miedema I, van den Bos GAM, Ormel J. Relationship of domain-specific measures of health to perceived overall health among older subjects. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:11–18
  11. Read JL, Quin RJ, Hoefer MA. Measuring overall health: an evaluation of three important approaches. J Chron Dis. 1987;40(Suppl):7S–19S
  12. Leavey R, Wilkin D. A comparison of two health survey measures of health status. Soc Sci Med. 1988;27:269–275
  13. Kempen GIJM. The MOS Short-Form General Health Survey: single item vs. multiple measures of health-related quality of life: some nuances. Psychol Rep. 1992;70:608–610
  14. Aseltine RH, Carlson KJ, Fowler FJ, Barry MJ. Comparing prospective and retrospective measures of treatment outcomes. Med Care. 1995;33(4 Suppl):AS67–AS76
  15. Middel B. Assessment of change in clinical evaluation. Groningen: Northern Centre for Healthcare Research, University of Groningen; 2001;
  16. Guyatt GH. Measurement of health-related quality of life in heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;22(4 Suppl A):185A–191A
  17. Middel B, Bouma J, de Jongste M, Van Sonderen E, Niemeijer MG, Crijns H, et al. Psychometric properties of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHF-Q). Clin Rehabil. 2001;15:489–500
  18. Rector TS, Cohn JN Pimobendan Multicenter Research Group. Assessment of patient outcome with the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire: reliability and validity during a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pimobendan. Am Heart J. 1992;124:1017–1025
  19. Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE. The MOS Short-form General Health Survey: reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care. 1988;26:724–735
  20. Perneger TV, Etter J-F, Rougemont A. Prospective versus retrospective measurement of change in health status: a community based study in Geneva. Switzerland. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1997;51:320–325
  21. Wright JG, Young NL. A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:239–246
  22. Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D. LISREL-8: user's reference guide. 2nd ed.. Chicago: Scientific Software International; 2003;
  23. Hu L, Bentler PM. Fit indices in covariance structure modelling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecifications. Psychol Methods. 1998;3:424–453
  24. Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:869–879
  25. Nunnally JC. The study of change in evaluation research: principles concerning measurement, experimental design, and analysis. In:  Struening EL,  Brewer MB editor. Handbook of evaluation research. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications; 1983;p. 231–269
  26. Gottman JM, Rushe RH. The analysis of change: issues, fallacies, and new ideas. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1993;61:907–910
  27. Hsu LM. Regression toward the mean associated with measurement error and the identification of improvement and deterioration in psychotherapy. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1995;63:141–144
  28. Bindman AB, Keane D, Lurie N. Measuring health changes among severely ill patients: the floor phenomenon. Med Care. 1990;28:1142–1152
  29. Baker DW, Hays RD, Brook RH. Understanding changes in health status: is the floor phenomenon merely the last step of the staircase?. Med Care. 1997;35:1–15
  30. Cook TD, Campbell DT. Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing; 1979;
  31. Mancuso CA, Charlson ME. Does recollection error threaten the validity of cross-sectional studies of effectiveness?. Med Care. 1995;33(4 Suppl):AS77–AS88
  32. Schwartz CE, Sprangers MAG. Methodological approaches for assessing response shift in longitudinal health-related quality-of-life research. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:1531–1548
  33. Fitzpatrick R, Ziebland S, Jenkinson C, Mowat A, Mowat A. Transition questions to assess outcome in rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol. 1993;32:807–811
  34. Coughlin SS. Recall bias in epidemiologic studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:87–91
  35. Fitzpatrick R, Albrecht G. The plausibility of quality-of-life measures in different domains of health care. In:  Nordenfelt L editors. Concepts and measurements of quality of life in health care. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1994;p. 201–227
  36. Redelmeier DA, Guyatt GH, Goldstein RS. Assessing the minimal important difference in symptoms: a comparison of two techniques. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:1215–1219
  37. Redelmeier DA, Lorig K. Assessing the clinical importance of symptomatic improvements: an illustration in rheumatology. Arch Intern Med. 1993;153:1337–1342

PII: S0895-4356(05)00352-5

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.08.018

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 59, Issue 5 , Pages 503-511 , May 2006

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution