ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2022
Evaluation of the link between the Guttman errors and response shift at the individual level.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in nonparametric item response theory for scale construction in quality-of-life research.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022Review
- Non-parametric measurement for patient-reported outcomes.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMethods for response shift (RS) detection at the individual level could be of great interest when analyzing changes in patient-reported outcome data. Guttman errors (GEs), which measure discrepancies in respondents' answers compared to the average sample responses, might be useful for detecting RS at the individual level between two time points, as RS may induce an increase in the number of discrepancies over time. This study aims to establish the link between recalibration RS and the change in the number of GEs over time (denoted index [Formula: see text]) via simulations and explores the discriminating ability of this index.
methodsWe simulated the responses of individuals affected or not affected by recalibration RS (defined as changes in the patients' standard of measurement) to determine whether simulated individuals with recalibration had a greater change in the number of GEs over time than individuals without recalibration. The effects of factors related to the sample, the questionnaire structure and recalibration were investigated. As an illustrative example, the change in the number of GEs was computed in patients suffering from eating disorders.
resultsWithin simulations, simulated individuals affected by recalibration had, on average, a greater change in the number of GEs over time than did individuals without RS. Some of the parameters related to the questionnaire structure and recalibration magnitude appeared to have substantial effects on the values of [Formula: see text]. Discriminating abilities appeared, however, globally low.
conclusionSome evidence of the link between recalibration and the change in GEs was found in this study. GEs could be a valuable nonparametric tool for RS detection at a more individual level, but further investigation is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34657280What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.