Review of Articles Related to Responsiveness as a Characteristic of Quality of Life Instruments
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22100/jkh.v10i1.377Keywords:
Responsiveness, Quality of life questionnaire, Internal responsiveness, External responsiveness.Abstract
Introduction: Responsiveness is a concept introduced in the mid-eighties by bio-medical researchers. It is considered as a fundamental feature of health-related quality of life questionnaires, which was different from reliability and validity. Responsiveness is defined as the ability of an instrument to detect the minimal clinically important differences. Most authors agree that responsiveness focuses on the ability of a criterion in measuring changes, but there is a wide variety of opinions about the nature of quantified change. This review study was performed to determine the responsiveness by using the valid and available articles.
Methods: Keywords of "responsiveness" and "quality of life" were searched in Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ProQuest, PsycINFO, Science Direct, Scopus, and Medline databases.
Results: Multiple definitions for responsiveness and different procedures for calculating it were investigated in various studies. A total of 30 articles were used as references. Responsiveness has been divided into two groups: External and internal. “Internal responsiveness” is defined as the ability of a measure to change over a specified time frame. “External responsiveness” reflects the extent to which changes in a measure over a specified time frame relate to corresponding changes in a reference measure of health status.
Conclusion: Despite the fact that some authors consider the responsiveness as the most basic characteristics for assessment of a tool, its measurement methodology is different. Meanwhile, there are different methods to assess responsiveness, but the researchers used one of them, and in development and validation of quality of life questionnaires must be regarded.
References
References
Wiebe S, Guyatt G, Weaver B, Matijevic S, Sidwell C. Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:52-60.
Beatona DE, Bombardier C, Katzc JN, Wright JG. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:1204-17.
Lindebloom R, Sprangers MA, Zwinderman AH. Responsiveness: A reinvention of the wheel? Health Qual Life Outcomes2005;3:8-12.
Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PM. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: Guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res 2003;12:349-62.
Hankins M. How discriminating are discriminative instruments? Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008;6:36.
Puhan M, Bryant D, Guyatt GH, Heels-Ansdell D, Schünemann HJ. Internal consistency reliability is a poor predictor of responsiveness. Health Qual Life Outcomes2005;3:33.
Norman GR, Wyrwich KW, Patrick DL. The mathematical rela-tionship among different forms of responsiveness coeffi-cients. Qual Life Res 2007;16:815-22.
Macedo LG, Latimer J, Maher CJ, Machado LAC, McAuley JH. Responsiveness of the 24-, 18- and 11-item versions of the roland morris disability questionnaire. Eur Spine J 2011;20:458-63.
Horng YS, Lin MC, Feng CT, Huang CH, Wu HC, Wang JD. Responsiveness of the michigan hand outcomes questionnaire and the disabilities of the arm, shoulder,and hand questionnaire in patients with hand injury. J Hand Surg Am 2010;35:430-6.
Batcho CB, Durez P, Thonnard J-L. Responsiveness of the abilhand questionnaire in measuring changes in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Arthritis Care Res 2011;63:135-41.
Konig H-H, Born A, Günther O, Matschinger H, Heinrich S, Riedel-Heller SG, et al. Validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in assessing and valuing health status in patients with anxiety disorders. Health Qual Life Outcomes2010;8:47-56.
McNair PJ, Prapavessis H, Collier J, Bassett S, Bryan At, Larmer P. The lower-limb tasks questionnaire: an assessment of validity, reliability, responsiveness, and minimal important differences. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007;88:993-1001.
Gonzalez JM. The use of responsive split questionnaires in a panel survey [dissertation],College Park :University of Maryland;2012.
Testa MA, Simonson DC. Assessment of quality of life outcomes. N Engl J Med1996;334:835-40.
Diehr P, Chena L, Patrick D, Feng Z, Yasui Y. Reliability, effect size, and responsiveness of health statusmeasures in the design of randomized and cluster-randomized trials. Contemporary Clin Trials 2005;26:45-58.
Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:459-68.
Wright JG, Young NL. A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:239-46.
Vianin DC M. Psychometric properties and clinical usefulness of the Oswestry Disability Index. J Chiropract Med 2008;7:161-3.
Cardol M, Beelen A, Van den Bos GA, Jong BA, Groot IJ, Haan RJ. Responsiveness of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:1524-9.
Zou GU. Quantifying responsiveness of quality of life measures without an external criterion. Qual Life Res 2005;14:1545-52.
Wuang YP, Su CY. Reliability and responsiveness of the bruininks-osertesky test of motor proficiency-second edition in children with intellectual disability. Res Develop Disabil 2009;30:847-55.
Thoma A, Sprague S, Veltri K, Duku E, Furlong W. Methodology and measurement properties of health-related quality of life instruments: A prospective study of patients undergoing breast reduction surgery. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005;3:44.
Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:395-407.
Mehta T, Subramaniam AV, Chetter I, McCollum P. Assessing the validity and responsiveness of disease-specific quality of life instruments in intermittent claudication. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2006;31:46-52.
Whynes DK, McCahon RA, Ravenscroft A, Hodgkinson V, Evley R, Hardman JG. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D health-related quality-of-life instrument in assessing low back pain. Value in Health 2013;16:124-32.
Loge CDL, Trudeau E, Marquis P, Revicki DA, Rentz AM, Stanghellini V, et al. Responsiveness and interpretation of a quality of Lifequestionnaire Specific to upper gastrointestinal disorders. Clin Gastroenter Hepat 2004;2:778-86.
Maheswaran D, Weich S, Powell J, Stewart-Brown S. Evaluating the responsiveness of the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS):Group and individual level analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes2012;10:156-63.
Higginson IJ, Carr IJ. Measuring quality of life: using quality of life measures in the clinical setting. BMJ 2001;322:1297-1300.
Shikiar R, Willian MK, Okun MM, Thompson CS, Revicki DA. The validity and responsiveness of three quality of life measures in the assessment of psoriasis patients: results of a phase II study. Health Qual Life Outcomes2006;4:71-83.
Uwer L, Rotonda C, Guillemin F, Miny J, Kaminsky MC, Mercier M, et al. Responsiveness of EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR38 and FACT-C quality of life questionnaires in patients with colorectal cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes2011;9:70-9.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
