Avoiding pitfalls of correlation coefficients in the assessment of measurement instruments in rehabilitation research
Objective: To provide a practical guide on how to avoid the pitfalls of correlated correlation coefficients when comparing multiple instruments in rehabilitation research. Design: An observational study comparing a number of instruments measuring quality of life (QoL) compared with an external crite...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical rehabilitation 2004-03, Vol.18 (2), p.186-194 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 194 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 186 |
| container_title | Clinical rehabilitation |
| container_volume | 18 |
| creator | Weatherall, Mark McPherson, Kathryn Taylor, William Simpson, Russell |
| description | Objective: To provide a practical guide on how to avoid the pitfalls of correlated correlation coefficients when comparing multiple instruments in rehabilitation research.
Design: An observational study comparing a number of instruments measuring quality of life (QoL) compared with an external criterion.
Subjects: Sixty-eight patients admitted to a rheumatology ward for intensive treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.
Methods: Patients completed three new (QoL) instruments and an established instrument before and after intensive treatment for rheumatoid arthritis.
Main outcome measures: Correlation coefficients together with their confidence intervals and a test for the difference between a set of correlated correlation coefficients for the change in the EuroQoL Quality of Life scale (EuroQoL), the World Health Organization Quality Of Life-Abbreviated version (WHOQoL-BREF) and the Quality of Life Profile (QLP) against the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ).
Results: Although the range of correlation between the new instruments and the external criterion was between -0.37 and -0.59 and suggested that one new instrument was far more responsive than the others,; an omnibus test for an overall difference could find no difference in responsiveness.
Conclusions: It is conceptually simple to use correlation coefficients to assess the properties of multiple instruments measured on the same subjects to find a ‘best’ instrument. However, proper interpretation of results when correlated correlation coefficients are calculated is complex. We recommend analysis includes: (a) that simple plots of the pairs of analysed variables are shown, (b) that simple linear model-fitting statistics, e.g., the R-squared statistic, accompany the plots, (c) that confidence intervals are presented for correlation coefficients, (d) that an omnibus statistical test for the difference between correlated correlation coefficients is presented, and (e) that normal model assumptions are tested. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1191/0269215504cr721oa |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71781995</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1191_0269215504cr721oa</sage_id><sourcerecordid>810839121</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c394t-c7e8ddc0ec24dd0af9a8c054cd68c102e593cda4f6531553eb4249a884c325d83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0U1rGzEQBmBRUhrH7Q_oJSw59LapPi3paEzSFAK9tOdFlmZthd2Vo9kN5N9Hrh0MCaUnfT16h2EI-croNWOWfad8YTlTikqfNWfJfSAzJrWuqdHijMz27_UenJMLxAdKqeGSfSLnTFElGDczMi2fUgxx2FS7OLau67BKbeVTztC5Maah7KFto48wjFjFoRq3UDlEQOzL1V734HDK8PcYBxzz1L_iDFu3jl0cD1kZEFz228_kY6mF8OW4zsmf25vfq7v6_tePn6vlfe2FlWPtNZgQPAXPZQjUtdYZT5X0YWE8oxyUFT442S5KN0oJWEsuizHSC66CEXPy7ZC7y-lxAhybPqKHrnMDpAkbzbRh1qr_QqWZ0NbqAq_ewIc05aE00XBKNRVG24LYAfmcEDO0zS7H3uXnhtFmP7nm3eTKn8tj8LTuIZx-HEdVwPUBoNvAqeq_E18AgjulHw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>200703879</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Avoiding pitfalls of correlation coefficients in the assessment of measurement instruments in rehabilitation research</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SAGE Complete</source><creator>Weatherall, Mark ; McPherson, Kathryn ; Taylor, William ; Simpson, Russell</creator><creatorcontrib>Weatherall, Mark ; McPherson, Kathryn ; Taylor, William ; Simpson, Russell</creatorcontrib><description>Objective: To provide a practical guide on how to avoid the pitfalls of correlated correlation coefficients when comparing multiple instruments in rehabilitation research.
Design: An observational study comparing a number of instruments measuring quality of life (QoL) compared with an external criterion.
Subjects: Sixty-eight patients admitted to a rheumatology ward for intensive treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.
Methods: Patients completed three new (QoL) instruments and an established instrument before and after intensive treatment for rheumatoid arthritis.
Main outcome measures: Correlation coefficients together with their confidence intervals and a test for the difference between a set of correlated correlation coefficients for the change in the EuroQoL Quality of Life scale (EuroQoL), the World Health Organization Quality Of Life-Abbreviated version (WHOQoL-BREF) and the Quality of Life Profile (QLP) against the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ).
Results: Although the range of correlation between the new instruments and the external criterion was between -0.37 and -0.59 and suggested that one new instrument was far more responsive than the others,; an omnibus test for an overall difference could find no difference in responsiveness.
Conclusions: It is conceptually simple to use correlation coefficients to assess the properties of multiple instruments measured on the same subjects to find a ‘best’ instrument. However, proper interpretation of results when correlated correlation coefficients are calculated is complex. We recommend analysis includes: (a) that simple plots of the pairs of analysed variables are shown, (b) that simple linear model-fitting statistics, e.g., the R-squared statistic, accompany the plots, (c) that confidence intervals are presented for correlation coefficients, (d) that an omnibus statistical test for the difference between correlated correlation coefficients is presented, and (e) that normal model assumptions are tested.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0269-2155</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1477-0873</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1191/0269215504cr721oa</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15053128</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications</publisher><subject>Arthritis, Rheumatoid - rehabilitation ; Assessment ; Correlation coefficients ; Guidelines ; Humans ; Pain Measurement ; Quality of Life ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Rehabilitation ; Research Design ; Research methods ; Rheumatoid arthritis ; Statistics as Topic - methods</subject><ispartof>Clinical rehabilitation, 2004-03, Vol.18 (2), p.186-194</ispartof><rights>Arnold 2004</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c394t-c7e8ddc0ec24dd0af9a8c054cd68c102e593cda4f6531553eb4249a884c325d83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c394t-c7e8ddc0ec24dd0af9a8c054cd68c102e593cda4f6531553eb4249a884c325d83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1191/0269215504cr721oa$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1191/0269215504cr721oa$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,12846,21819,27924,27925,30999,31000,43621,43622</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15053128$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Weatherall, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McPherson, Kathryn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taylor, William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simpson, Russell</creatorcontrib><title>Avoiding pitfalls of correlation coefficients in the assessment of measurement instruments in rehabilitation research</title><title>Clinical rehabilitation</title><addtitle>Clin Rehabil</addtitle><description>Objective: To provide a practical guide on how to avoid the pitfalls of correlated correlation coefficients when comparing multiple instruments in rehabilitation research.
Design: An observational study comparing a number of instruments measuring quality of life (QoL) compared with an external criterion.
Subjects: Sixty-eight patients admitted to a rheumatology ward for intensive treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.
Methods: Patients completed three new (QoL) instruments and an established instrument before and after intensive treatment for rheumatoid arthritis.
Main outcome measures: Correlation coefficients together with their confidence intervals and a test for the difference between a set of correlated correlation coefficients for the change in the EuroQoL Quality of Life scale (EuroQoL), the World Health Organization Quality Of Life-Abbreviated version (WHOQoL-BREF) and the Quality of Life Profile (QLP) against the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ).
Results: Although the range of correlation between the new instruments and the external criterion was between -0.37 and -0.59 and suggested that one new instrument was far more responsive than the others,; an omnibus test for an overall difference could find no difference in responsiveness.
Conclusions: It is conceptually simple to use correlation coefficients to assess the properties of multiple instruments measured on the same subjects to find a ‘best’ instrument. However, proper interpretation of results when correlated correlation coefficients are calculated is complex. We recommend analysis includes: (a) that simple plots of the pairs of analysed variables are shown, (b) that simple linear model-fitting statistics, e.g., the R-squared statistic, accompany the plots, (c) that confidence intervals are presented for correlation coefficients, (d) that an omnibus statistical test for the difference between correlated correlation coefficients is presented, and (e) that normal model assumptions are tested.</description><subject>Arthritis, Rheumatoid - rehabilitation</subject><subject>Assessment</subject><subject>Correlation coefficients</subject><subject>Guidelines</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Pain Measurement</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Rehabilitation</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Research methods</subject><subject>Rheumatoid arthritis</subject><subject>Statistics as Topic - methods</subject><issn>0269-2155</issn><issn>1477-0873</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0U1rGzEQBmBRUhrH7Q_oJSw59LapPi3paEzSFAK9tOdFlmZthd2Vo9kN5N9Hrh0MCaUnfT16h2EI-croNWOWfad8YTlTikqfNWfJfSAzJrWuqdHijMz27_UenJMLxAdKqeGSfSLnTFElGDczMi2fUgxx2FS7OLau67BKbeVTztC5Maah7KFto48wjFjFoRq3UDlEQOzL1V734HDK8PcYBxzz1L_iDFu3jl0cD1kZEFz228_kY6mF8OW4zsmf25vfq7v6_tePn6vlfe2FlWPtNZgQPAXPZQjUtdYZT5X0YWE8oxyUFT442S5KN0oJWEsuizHSC66CEXPy7ZC7y-lxAhybPqKHrnMDpAkbzbRh1qr_QqWZ0NbqAq_ewIc05aE00XBKNRVG24LYAfmcEDO0zS7H3uXnhtFmP7nm3eTKn8tj8LTuIZx-HEdVwPUBoNvAqeq_E18AgjulHw</recordid><startdate>20040301</startdate><enddate>20040301</enddate><creator>Weatherall, Mark</creator><creator>McPherson, Kathryn</creator><creator>Taylor, William</creator><creator>Simpson, Russell</creator><general>Sage Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</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>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20040301</creationdate><title>Avoiding pitfalls of correlation coefficients in the assessment of measurement instruments in rehabilitation research</title><author>Weatherall, Mark ; McPherson, Kathryn ; Taylor, William ; Simpson, Russell</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c394t-c7e8ddc0ec24dd0af9a8c054cd68c102e593cda4f6531553eb4249a884c325d83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Arthritis, Rheumatoid - rehabilitation</topic><topic>Assessment</topic><topic>Correlation coefficients</topic><topic>Guidelines</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Pain Measurement</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Rehabilitation</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Research methods</topic><topic>Rheumatoid arthritis</topic><topic>Statistics as Topic - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Weatherall, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McPherson, Kathryn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taylor, William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simpson, Russell</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 Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest_Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Family Health Database (Proquest)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health Management Database (Proquest)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology Journals</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</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 Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical rehabilitation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Weatherall, Mark</au><au>McPherson, Kathryn</au><au>Taylor, William</au><au>Simpson, Russell</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Avoiding pitfalls of correlation coefficients in the assessment of measurement instruments in rehabilitation research</atitle><jtitle>Clinical rehabilitation</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Rehabil</addtitle><date>2004-03-01</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>186</spage><epage>194</epage><pages>186-194</pages><issn>0269-2155</issn><eissn>1477-0873</eissn><abstract>Objective: To provide a practical guide on how to avoid the pitfalls of correlated correlation coefficients when comparing multiple instruments in rehabilitation research.
Design: An observational study comparing a number of instruments measuring quality of life (QoL) compared with an external criterion.
Subjects: Sixty-eight patients admitted to a rheumatology ward for intensive treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.
Methods: Patients completed three new (QoL) instruments and an established instrument before and after intensive treatment for rheumatoid arthritis.
Main outcome measures: Correlation coefficients together with their confidence intervals and a test for the difference between a set of correlated correlation coefficients for the change in the EuroQoL Quality of Life scale (EuroQoL), the World Health Organization Quality Of Life-Abbreviated version (WHOQoL-BREF) and the Quality of Life Profile (QLP) against the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ).
Results: Although the range of correlation between the new instruments and the external criterion was between -0.37 and -0.59 and suggested that one new instrument was far more responsive than the others,; an omnibus test for an overall difference could find no difference in responsiveness.
Conclusions: It is conceptually simple to use correlation coefficients to assess the properties of multiple instruments measured on the same subjects to find a ‘best’ instrument. However, proper interpretation of results when correlated correlation coefficients are calculated is complex. We recommend analysis includes: (a) that simple plots of the pairs of analysed variables are shown, (b) that simple linear model-fitting statistics, e.g., the R-squared statistic, accompany the plots, (c) that confidence intervals are presented for correlation coefficients, (d) that an omnibus statistical test for the difference between correlated correlation coefficients is presented, and (e) that normal model assumptions are tested.</abstract><cop>Thousand Oaks, CA</cop><pub>Sage Publications</pub><pmid>15053128</pmid><doi>10.1191/0269215504cr721oa</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0269-2155 |
| ispartof | Clinical rehabilitation, 2004-03, Vol.18 (2), p.186-194 |
| issn | 0269-2155 1477-0873 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71781995 |
| source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); MEDLINE; SAGE Complete |
| subjects | Arthritis, Rheumatoid - rehabilitation Assessment Correlation coefficients Guidelines Humans Pain Measurement Quality of Life Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Rehabilitation Research Design Research methods Rheumatoid arthritis Statistics as Topic - methods |
| title | Avoiding pitfalls of correlation coefficients in the assessment of measurement instruments in rehabilitation research |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T08%3A02%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Avoiding%20pitfalls%20of%20correlation%20coefficients%20in%20the%20assessment%20of%20measurement%20instruments%20in%20rehabilitation%20research&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20rehabilitation&rft.au=Weatherall,%20Mark&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=186&rft.epage=194&rft.pages=186-194&rft.issn=0269-2155&rft.eissn=1477-0873&rft_id=info:doi/10.1191/0269215504cr721oa&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E810839121%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=200703879&rft_id=info:pmid/15053128&rft_sage_id=10.1191_0269215504cr721oa&rfr_iscdi=true |