The Mathematical Relationship among Different Forms of Responsiveness Coefficients

Background Little consensus exists regarding the most appropriate measure of responsiveness. While most indices are variants on Cohen's effect size, the mathematical relationships among these indices have not been elucidated. Consequently, the health-related quality of life (HRQL) literature co...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Quality of life research 2007-06, Vol.16 (5), p.815-822
Hauptverfasser: Norman, G. R., Wyrwich, Kathleen W., Patrick, Donald L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 822
container_issue 5
container_start_page 815
container_title Quality of life research
container_volume 16
creator Norman, G. R.
Wyrwich, Kathleen W.
Patrick, Donald L.
description Background Little consensus exists regarding the most appropriate measure of responsiveness. While most indices are variants on Cohen's effect size, the mathematical relationships among these indices have not been elucidated. Consequently, the health-related quality of life (HRQL) literature contains many publications in which a variety of different indices are computed and differences among them noted. These differences are completely predictable when the underlying analytical form of each coefficient is explicated. Methods In this paper, we begin with a mathematical analysis of the variance components underlying an observed change score. From this, we determine analytically the relationships among the more commonly used indices of responsiveness. Conclusions Based on this analysis, we conclude that Cohen's effect size and the Standardized Response Mean are the two most appropriate measures, as each provides unique information and each best captures an important relation between treatment effect and variability in response. However, the latter should be interpreted with caution, as under some circumstances, any measure based on variability in change scores can give misleading information. On this basis, we recommend that future analysis of responsiveness be restricted to the Cohen effect size to ensure interpretability and comparability with treatment effects in other domains.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11136-007-9180-x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70416991</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>27641312</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>27641312</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c348t-33891d784d112c0aa5db72dc49f43bda003baaa3bf32b23798c05506172192c73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpd0E1LxDAQBuAgiq4fP8CDUjx4q2YybZMcZf0ERRA9hzRN3C5tsyZd0X9vll0UPOWFPDMMLyHHQC-AUn4ZAQCrPMVcgqD51xaZQMkxZ1Uht8mEyorlEgvcI_sxzimlQlK2S_aAYwmC4YS8vM5s9qTHme312BrdZS-2S8kPcdYuMt374T27bp2zwQ5jdutDHzPvkoqLZNpPO9gYs6m3zrWmTSYekh2nu2iPNu8Bebu9eZ3e54_Pdw_Tq8fcYCHGHFFIaLgoGgBmqNZlU3PWmEK6AutGU4q11hprh6xmyKUwtCxpBZyBZIbjATlf710E_7G0cVR9G43tOj1Yv4yK0wIqKSHBs39w7pdhSLcpIVAALwUmBGtkgo8xWKcWoe11-FZA1apttW5breKqbfWVZk43i5d1b5u_iU29CZyswTyOPvz-M14VgMDwB-d8g_s</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>883817583</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Mathematical Relationship among Different Forms of Responsiveness Coefficients</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Online Journals Complete</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Norman, G. R. ; Wyrwich, Kathleen W. ; Patrick, Donald L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Norman, G. R. ; Wyrwich, Kathleen W. ; Patrick, Donald L.</creatorcontrib><description>Background Little consensus exists regarding the most appropriate measure of responsiveness. While most indices are variants on Cohen's effect size, the mathematical relationships among these indices have not been elucidated. Consequently, the health-related quality of life (HRQL) literature contains many publications in which a variety of different indices are computed and differences among them noted. These differences are completely predictable when the underlying analytical form of each coefficient is explicated. Methods In this paper, we begin with a mathematical analysis of the variance components underlying an observed change score. From this, we determine analytically the relationships among the more commonly used indices of responsiveness. Conclusions Based on this analysis, we conclude that Cohen's effect size and the Standardized Response Mean are the two most appropriate measures, as each provides unique information and each best captures an important relation between treatment effect and variability in response. However, the latter should be interpreted with caution, as under some circumstances, any measure based on variability in change scores can give misleading information. On this basis, we recommend that future analysis of responsiveness be restricted to the Cohen effect size to ensure interpretability and comparability with treatment effects in other domains.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0962-9343</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-2649</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11136-007-9180-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17351823</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Springer</publisher><subject>Analysis of Variance ; Biomedical Research ; Coefficients ; Control groups ; Health status ; Humans ; Instrument Development and Evaluation ; Models, Statistical ; Psychometrics - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Quality of Life ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sample size ; Sickness Impact Profile ; Standard deviation ; Standard error ; Statistical tests ; Statistical variance ; Studies ; T tests ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Quality of life research, 2007-06, Vol.16 (5), p.815-822</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2007 Springer</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c348t-33891d784d112c0aa5db72dc49f43bda003baaa3bf32b23798c05506172192c73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c348t-33891d784d112c0aa5db72dc49f43bda003baaa3bf32b23798c05506172192c73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27641312$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/27641312$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17351823$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Norman, G. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wyrwich, Kathleen W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patrick, Donald L.</creatorcontrib><title>The Mathematical Relationship among Different Forms of Responsiveness Coefficients</title><title>Quality of life research</title><addtitle>Qual Life Res</addtitle><description>Background Little consensus exists regarding the most appropriate measure of responsiveness. While most indices are variants on Cohen's effect size, the mathematical relationships among these indices have not been elucidated. Consequently, the health-related quality of life (HRQL) literature contains many publications in which a variety of different indices are computed and differences among them noted. These differences are completely predictable when the underlying analytical form of each coefficient is explicated. Methods In this paper, we begin with a mathematical analysis of the variance components underlying an observed change score. From this, we determine analytically the relationships among the more commonly used indices of responsiveness. Conclusions Based on this analysis, we conclude that Cohen's effect size and the Standardized Response Mean are the two most appropriate measures, as each provides unique information and each best captures an important relation between treatment effect and variability in response. However, the latter should be interpreted with caution, as under some circumstances, any measure based on variability in change scores can give misleading information. On this basis, we recommend that future analysis of responsiveness be restricted to the Cohen effect size to ensure interpretability and comparability with treatment effects in other domains.</description><subject>Analysis of Variance</subject><subject>Biomedical Research</subject><subject>Coefficients</subject><subject>Control groups</subject><subject>Health status</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Instrument Development and Evaluation</subject><subject>Models, Statistical</subject><subject>Psychometrics - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sample size</subject><subject>Sickness Impact Profile</subject><subject>Standard deviation</subject><subject>Standard error</subject><subject>Statistical tests</subject><subject>Statistical variance</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>T tests</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0962-9343</issn><issn>1573-2649</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNpd0E1LxDAQBuAgiq4fP8CDUjx4q2YybZMcZf0ERRA9hzRN3C5tsyZd0X9vll0UPOWFPDMMLyHHQC-AUn4ZAQCrPMVcgqD51xaZQMkxZ1Uht8mEyorlEgvcI_sxzimlQlK2S_aAYwmC4YS8vM5s9qTHme312BrdZS-2S8kPcdYuMt374T27bp2zwQ5jdutDHzPvkoqLZNpPO9gYs6m3zrWmTSYekh2nu2iPNu8Bebu9eZ3e54_Pdw_Tq8fcYCHGHFFIaLgoGgBmqNZlU3PWmEK6AutGU4q11hprh6xmyKUwtCxpBZyBZIbjATlf710E_7G0cVR9G43tOj1Yv4yK0wIqKSHBs39w7pdhSLcpIVAALwUmBGtkgo8xWKcWoe11-FZA1apttW5breKqbfWVZk43i5d1b5u_iU29CZyswTyOPvz-M14VgMDwB-d8g_s</recordid><startdate>20070601</startdate><enddate>20070601</enddate><creator>Norman, G. R.</creator><creator>Wyrwich, Kathleen W.</creator><creator>Patrick, Donald L.</creator><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070601</creationdate><title>The Mathematical Relationship among Different Forms of Responsiveness Coefficients</title><author>Norman, G. R. ; Wyrwich, Kathleen W. ; Patrick, Donald L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c348t-33891d784d112c0aa5db72dc49f43bda003baaa3bf32b23798c05506172192c73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Analysis of Variance</topic><topic>Biomedical Research</topic><topic>Coefficients</topic><topic>Control groups</topic><topic>Health status</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Instrument Development and Evaluation</topic><topic>Models, Statistical</topic><topic>Psychometrics - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sample size</topic><topic>Sickness Impact Profile</topic><topic>Standard deviation</topic><topic>Standard error</topic><topic>Statistical tests</topic><topic>Statistical variance</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>T tests</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Norman, G. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wyrwich, Kathleen W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patrick, Donald L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Quality of life research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Norman, G. R.</au><au>Wyrwich, Kathleen W.</au><au>Patrick, Donald L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Mathematical Relationship among Different Forms of Responsiveness Coefficients</atitle><jtitle>Quality of life research</jtitle><addtitle>Qual Life Res</addtitle><date>2007-06-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>815</spage><epage>822</epage><pages>815-822</pages><issn>0962-9343</issn><eissn>1573-2649</eissn><abstract>Background Little consensus exists regarding the most appropriate measure of responsiveness. While most indices are variants on Cohen's effect size, the mathematical relationships among these indices have not been elucidated. Consequently, the health-related quality of life (HRQL) literature contains many publications in which a variety of different indices are computed and differences among them noted. These differences are completely predictable when the underlying analytical form of each coefficient is explicated. Methods In this paper, we begin with a mathematical analysis of the variance components underlying an observed change score. From this, we determine analytically the relationships among the more commonly used indices of responsiveness. Conclusions Based on this analysis, we conclude that Cohen's effect size and the Standardized Response Mean are the two most appropriate measures, as each provides unique information and each best captures an important relation between treatment effect and variability in response. However, the latter should be interpreted with caution, as under some circumstances, any measure based on variability in change scores can give misleading information. On this basis, we recommend that future analysis of responsiveness be restricted to the Cohen effect size to ensure interpretability and comparability with treatment effects in other domains.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Springer</pub><pmid>17351823</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11136-007-9180-x</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0962-9343
ispartof Quality of life research, 2007-06, Vol.16 (5), p.815-822
issn 0962-9343
1573-2649
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70416991
source MEDLINE; Springer Online Journals Complete; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing
subjects Analysis of Variance
Biomedical Research
Coefficients
Control groups
Health status
Humans
Instrument Development and Evaluation
Models, Statistical
Psychometrics - statistics & numerical data
Quality of Life
Reproducibility of Results
Sample size
Sickness Impact Profile
Standard deviation
Standard error
Statistical tests
Statistical variance
Studies
T tests
Treatment Outcome
title The Mathematical Relationship among Different Forms of Responsiveness Coefficients
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-22T17%3A26%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Mathematical%20Relationship%20among%20Different%20Forms%20of%20Responsiveness%20Coefficients&rft.jtitle=Quality%20of%20life%20research&rft.au=Norman,%20G.%20R.&rft.date=2007-06-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=815&rft.epage=822&rft.pages=815-822&rft.issn=0962-9343&rft.eissn=1573-2649&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11136-007-9180-x&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E27641312%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=883817583&rft_id=info:pmid/17351823&rft_jstor_id=27641312&rfr_iscdi=true