Original article
A comparison of different indices of responsiveness

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00373-3Get rights and content

Abstract

The first purpose of this study was to determine if different indices of responsiveness provided similar rank orderings of scales in terms of responsiveness. The second purpose was to compare the responsiveness of patient-specific, disease-specific, and generic health status measures for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty.

All patients of one surgeon at a single institution were eligible for the study. Patients who did not speak English or did not return for post-operative evaluations were excluded. Patients completed two disease-specific scales (the Harris Hip Scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster osteoarthritis scale or WOMAC), one generic health status scale (the SF-36), and two patient-specific scales (the McMaster-Toronto Arthritis questionnaire or MACTAR and the Patient Specific Index or PASI). All scales were administered on two occasions: before and 6 months after total hip arthroplasty. Responsiveness was measured using: (1) the responsiveness statistic; (2) standardized response mean; (3) relative efficiency statistic; (4) effect size; and also by (5) correlating each scale's change score with the change in patients' global ratings of their “hip function.”

Seventy-eight sequential patients completed the study. The mean age was 62 years (range 25–87), 55% were male, and 71% had osteoarthritis. Test-retest reliability of the scales ranged from 0.31 to 0.93. The correlation among scales was consistent with a priori hypotheses confirming construct validity of the scales. Although the disease-specific scales were generally rated as the most responsive scales, the different indices provided different rank orderings by up to 5 levels (p = 0.04).

In conclusion, disease-specific scales are the most responsive scales. However, choosing among scales based on responsiveness must be done with caution because different indices of responsiveness provide different rank ordering.

References (44)

  • AR Feinstein
  • DL Patrick et al.

    Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life

    Med Care

    (1989)
  • JN Katz et al.

    Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments

    Med Care

    (1992)
  • WH Harris et al.

    Total hip and total knee replacement

    N Engl J Med

    (1990)
  • RA Deyo et al.

    Toward clinical applications of health status measures: Sensitivity of scales to clinically important changes

    Health Services Res

    (1984)
  • MH Liang

    Evaluating measurement responsiveness

    J Rheumatol

    (1995)
  • DN Churchill et al.

    A comparison of evaluative indices of quality of life and cognitive function in hemodialysis patients

    Controlled Clin Trials

    (1991)
  • A Laupacis et al.

    The use of generic and specific quality-of-life measures in hemodialysis patients treated with Erythropoietin

    Controlled Clin Trials

    (1991)
  • ME Kantz et al.

    Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement

    Med Care

    (1992)
  • R Buchbinder et al.

    Which outcome measures should be used in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials? Clinical and quality-of-life measures' responsiveness to treatment in a randomized controlled trial

    Arthrit Rheumat

    (1995)
  • R Fitzpatrick et al.

    A comparison of the sensitivity to change of several health status instruments in rheumatoid arthritis

    Rheumatol

    (1993)
  • CR MacKenzie et al.

    A patient-specific measure of change in maximal function

    Arch Intern Med

    (1986)
  • Cited by (393)

    • Validation of Harris hip score in the indian population

      2020, Journal of Arthroscopy and Joint Surgery
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This work was supported by a grant from the Arthritis Sodety of Cananda.

    1

    J. G. Wright is supported by a Canadian Medical Research Council Scholarship.

    2

    N. L. Young is supported by an Ontario Ministry of Health Fellowship.

    View full text