Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Quality of Life Research
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research 6/2016

09.09.2015 | Special Section: Response Shift Effects at Item Level (by invitation only)

On the validity of measuring change over time in routine clinical assessment: a close examination of item-level response shifts in psychosomatic inpatients

verfasst von: S. Nolte, A. Mierke, H. F. Fischer, M. Rose

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 6/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

Significant life events such as severe health status changes or intensive medical treatment often trigger response shifts in individuals that may hamper the comparison of measurements over time. Drawing from the Oort model, this study aims at detecting response shift at the item level in psychosomatic inpatients and evaluating its impact on the validity of comparing repeated measurements.

Study design and setting

Complete pretest and posttest data were available from 1188 patients who had filled out the ICD-10 Symptom Rating (ISR) scale at admission and discharge, on average 24 days after intake. Reconceptualization, reprioritization, and recalibration response shifts were explored applying tests of measurement invariance. In the item-level approach, all model parameters were constrained to be equal between pretest and posttest. If non-invariance was detected, these were linked to the different types of response shift.

Results

When constraining across-occasion model parameters, model fit worsened as indicated by a significant Satorra–Bentler Chi-square difference test suggesting potential presence of response shifts. A close examination revealed presence of two types of response shift, i.e., (non)uniform recalibration and both higher- and lower-level reconceptualization response shifts leading to four model adjustments.

Conclusions

Our analyses suggest that psychosomatic inpatients experienced some response shifts during their hospital stay. According to the hierarchy of measurement invariance, however, only one of the detected non-invariances is critical for unbiased mean comparisons over time, which did not have a substantial impact on estimating change. Hence, the use of the ISR can be recommended for outcomes assessment in clinical routine, as change score estimates do not seem hampered by response shift effects.
Literatur
1.
Ahmed, S., Berzon, R. A., Revicki, D. A., Lenderking, W. R., Moinpour, C. M., Basch, E., et al. (2012). The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: Implications for clinical practice and health care policy. Medical Care, 50(12), 1060–1070.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Basch, E., Abernethy, A. P., & Reeve, B. B. (2011). Assuring the patient centeredness of patient-reported outcomes: Content validity in medical product development and comparative effectiveness research. Value Health, 14(8), 965–966.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
4.
5.
Frank, L., Basch, E., & Selby, J. V. (2014). The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. JAMA, 312(15), 1513–1514.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Golembiewski, R. T., Billingsley, K., & Yeager, S. (1976). Measuring change and persistence in human affairs: Types of change generated by OD designs. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12, 133–157.CrossRef
7.
Howard, G. S., & Dailey, P. R. (1979). Response-shift bias: A source of contamination of self-report measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(2), 144–150.CrossRef
8.
Sprangers, M. A. G. (1996). Response-shift bias: A challenge to the assessment of patients’ quality of life in cancer clinical trials. Cancer Treatment Reviews, 22(Suppl 1), 55–62.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Sprangers, M. A. G., & Schwartz, C. E. (1999). Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: A theoretical model. Social Science and Medicine, 48(11), 1507–1515.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Schmitt, N. (1982). The use of analysis of covariance structure to assess beta and gamma change. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 17(3), 343–358.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Terborg, J., Howard, G., & Maxwell, S. (1980). Evaluating planned organizational change: A method for assessing alpha, beta, and gamma change. Academy Management Review, 5, 109–121.
12.
Howard, G. (1980). Response-shift bias—A problem in evaluating interventions with pre/post self-reports. Evaluation Review, 4, 93–106.CrossRef
13.
Schwartz, C. E., & Sprangers, M. A. G. (1999). Methodological approaches for assessing response shift in longitudinal health-related quality-of-life research. Social Science and Medicine, 48(11), 1531–1548.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Osborne, R. H., Hawkins, M., & Sprangers, M. A. G. (2006). Change of perspective: A measurable and desired outcome of chronic disease self-management intervention programs that violates the premise of preintervention/postintervention assessment. Arthritis Care & Research, 55(3), 458–465.CrossRef
15.
Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How should we measure “change”—Or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74(1), 68–80.CrossRef
16.
Schwartz, C. E., Bode, R., Repucci, N., Becker, J., Sprangers, M. A., & Fayers, P. M. (2006). The clinical significance of adaptation to changing health: A meta-analysis of response shift. Quality of Life Research, 15(9), 1533–1550.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Schwartz, C., & Sprangers, M. (2010). Guidelines for improving the stringency of response shift research using the thentest. Quality of Life Research, 19, 455–464.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Nolte, S., Elsworth, G. R., Sinclair, A. J., & Osborne, R. H. (2009). Tests of measurement invariance failed to support the application of the “then-test”. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(11), 1173–1180.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Schwartz, C. E., & Rapkin, B. D. (2012). Understanding appraisal processes underlying the thentest: A mixed methods investigation. Quality of Life Research, 21, 381–388.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Oort, F. J. (2005). Using structural equation modeling to detect response shift and true change. Quality of Life Research, 14(3), 587–598.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Oort, F. J., Visser, M. R. M., & Sprangers, M. A. G. (2005). An application of structural equation modeling to detect response shifts and true change in quality of life data from cancer patients undergoing invasive surgery. Quality of Life Research, 14(3), 599–609.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Rapkin, B., & Schwartz, C. (2004). Toward a theoretical model of quality-of-life appraisal: Implications of findings from studies of response shift. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2(1), 14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Nolte, S., Elsworth, G. R., Newman, S., & Osborne, R. H. (2013). Measurement issues in the evaluation of chronic disease self-management programs. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1655–1664.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Gibbons, F. X. (1999). Social comparison as a mediator of response shift. Social Science & Medicine, 48(11), 1517–1530.CrossRef
25.
Dibb, B., & Yardley, L. (2006). How does social comparison within a self-help group influence adjustment to chronic illness? A longitudinal study. Social Science & Medicine, 63(6), 1602–1613.CrossRef
26.
Shedler, J. (2010). The efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 65(2), 98–109.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Johansson, P., Hoglend, P., & Hersoug, A. G. (2011). Therapeutic alliance mediates the effect of patient expectancy in dynamic psychotherapy. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50(3), 283–297.PubMed
28.
Gregorich, S. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care, 44(11), S78–S94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Tritt, K., von Heymann, F., Zaudig, M., Zacharias, I., Söllner, W., & Loew, T. (2008). Development of the “ICD-10-Symptom-Rating” (ISR) questionnaire. Zeitschrift fur Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychotherapie, 54(4), 409–418.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Deutsches Institut für Medizinische Dokumentation und Information. (2012). ICD-10-GM Version 2013 Systematisches Verzeichnis, Internationale statistische Klassifikation der Krankheiten und verwandter Gesundheitsprobleme, 10 Revision, German Modification.
31.
Fischer, H. F., Tritt, K., Klapp, B. F., & Fliege, H. (2010). Factor structure and psychometric properties of the ICD-10-Symptom-Rating (ISR) in samples of psychosomatic patients. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, Medizinische Psychologie, 60(8), 307–315.CrossRefPubMed
32.
van de Schoot, R., Kluytmans, A., Tummers, L., Lugtig, P., Hox, J., & Muthen, B. (2013). Facing off with Scylla and Charybdis: A comparison of scalar, partial, and the novel possibility of approximate measurement invariance. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 770.PubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis, and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.CrossRef
34.
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466.CrossRef
35.
Steenkamp, J.-B., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–90.CrossRef
36.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Rabin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
37.
van de Vliert, E., Huismans, S., & Stok, J. (1985). The criterion approach to unraveling beta and alpha change. Academy of Management Review, 10, 269–274.CrossRef
38.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. (2001). A scaled difference Chi square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514.CrossRef
39.
Bryant, F., & Satorra, A. (2012). Principles and practice of scaled difference Chi square testing. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19(3), 372–398.CrossRef
40.
41.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996–2001). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide (2nd ed.). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
42.
Jöreskog, K. (1990). New developments in LISREL: Analysis of ordinal variables using polychoric correlations and weighted least squares. Quality & Quantity, 24(4), 387–404.CrossRef
43.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1996–2002). PRELIS 2: User’s reference guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
44.
Rose, M., Wahl, I., Crusius, J., & Lowe, B. (2011). Psychological comorbidity. A challenge in acute care. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz, 54(1), 83–89.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Oort, F. J. (2005). Towards a formal definition of response shift (in reply to G.W. Donaldson). Quality of Life Research, 14(10), 2353–2355.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Donaldson, G. (2005). Structural equation models for quality of life response shifts: Promises and pitfalls. Quality of Life Research, 14, 2345–2351.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Muthen, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 313–335.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
On the validity of measuring change over time in routine clinical assessment: a close examination of item-level response shifts in psychosomatic inpatients
verfasst von
S. Nolte
A. Mierke
H. F. Fischer
M. Rose
Publikationsdatum
09.09.2015
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 6/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1123-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2016

Quality of Life Research 6/2016 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Distinct trajectories of disease-specific health status in heart failure patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy

Special Section: Response Shift Effects at Item Level (by invitation only)

An item-level response shift study on the change of health state with the rating of asthma-specific quality of life: a report from the PROMIS® Pediatric Asthma Study

Special Section: Response Shift Effects at Item Level (by invitation only)

Using structural equation modeling to detect response shifts and true change in discrete variables: an application to the items of the SF-36

OriginalPaper

Gender differences in the impact of mental disorders and chronic physical conditions on health-related quality of life among non-demented primary care elderly patients

Special Section: Response Shift Effects at Item Level (by invitation only)

Using a retrospective pretest instead of a conventional pretest is replacing biases: a qualitative study of cognitive processes underlying responses to thentest items

Special Section: Response Shift Effects at Item Level (by invitation only)

The Guttman errors as a tool for response shift detection at subgroup and item levels