Original article
Evaluating changes in health status: Reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00296-XGet rights and content

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the measurement properties over time of five generic health status assessment techniques. Methods: Five health status measures were completed on two occasions by a sample of workers with musculoskeletal disorders. They included the SF-36, Nottingham Health Profile, Health Status Section of the Ontario Health Survey (OHS), Duke Health Profile, the Sickness Impact Profile and a self-report of change in health between tests. Setting: Subjects were accrued from a work site (within one week of injury) (n = 53), physiotherapy clinics (four weeks after injury), (n = 34), and a tertiary level rehabilitation center (more than four weeks after injury) (n = 40). Analysis: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) derived from nonparametric one-way analysis of variance were used for test-retest reliability in those who had not changed (n = 49). Various responsiveness statistics were used to evaluate responsiveness in those who claimed they had a positive change in health (n = 45) and in those who would have been expected to have a positive change (n = 79). Results: Of the 127 subjects recruited, 114 completed both questionnaires (89.8%). In the subjects who reported no change in health, analysis of targeted dimensions (overall scores, physical function, and pain) demonstrated acceptable to excellent test—retest reliability in all but the Duke Health Profile. In subjects with change in health, the SF-36 was the most responsive measure (moderate to large effect sizes [0.55–0.97] and standardized response means ranging between 0.81 and 1.13). Conclusions: The results suggest that the SF-36 was the most appropriate questionnaire to measure health changes in the population studied. The selection of a health status measure must be context-specific, taking into account the purpose and population of the planned research.

References (78)

  • AR Feinstein et al.

    High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes

    J Clin Epidemiol

    (1990)
  • MC Tammemagi et al.

    Methodological issues in assessing reproducibility—A comparative study of various indices of reproducibility applied to repeat Elisa serological tests for Lyme Disease

    J Clin Epidemiol

    (1995)
  • GH Guyatt et al.

    Measuring health status: What are the necessary measurement properties?

    Clin Epidemiol

    (1992)
  • NK Aaronson

    Quality of life assessment in clinical trials: Methodological issues

    Con Clin Trial

    (1989)
  • C Bombardier et al.

    A comparison of health-related quality-of-life measures for rheumatoid arthritis research

    Con Clin Trial

    (1991)
  • DR Cox et al.

    Quality of life assessment: Can we keep it simple?

    J R Statis Soc

    (1992)
  • M Bergner

    Quality of life, health status, and clinical research

    Med Care

    (1989)
  • DL Patrick et al.
  • RA Deyo et al.

    Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures

    Con Clin Trial

    (1991)
  • D Spiegelhalter et al.

    Quality of life measures in health care: III Resource allocation

    Br Med J

    (1992)
  • A Fletcher et al.

    Quality of life measures in health care: II Design, analysis, and interpretation

    Br Med J

    (1992)
  • RA Deyo et al.

    Barriers to the use of health status measures in clinical investigation, patient care, and policy research

    Medical Care

    (1989)
  • J. Cohen
  • C Bombardier et al.

    Methodological considerations in functional assessment

    J Rheumatol

    (1987)
  • JE Ware et al.

    Choosing measures of health status for individuals in general populations

    Am J. Pub Health

    (1981)
  • RA Deyo et al.

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

    HSR

    (1984)
  • M Bergner

    Health status measures: an overview and guide for selection

    Annu Rev Publ Health

    (1987)
  • R Fitzpatrick et al.

    Quality of life measures in health care: I. Applications and issues in assessment

    Br Med J

    (1992)
  • DL Patrick et al.

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

    Medical Care

    (1989)
  • SM Hunt et al.

    Reliability of a population survey tool for measuring perceived health problems: A study of patients with osteoarthrosis

    J Epi Common Health

    (1981)
  • JE Ware

    Measuring patients' views: The optimum outcome measure

    Br Med J

    (1993)
  • AR Feinstein

    Benefits and obstacles for development of health status assessment measures in clinical settings

    Medical Care

    (1992)
  • DL Patrick et al.

    Measurement of health status in the 1990s

    Annu Rev Publ Health

    (1990)
  • GH Guyatt et al.

    Measuring health-related quality of life

    Ann Intern Med

    (1993)
  • I Wiklund et al.

    Evaluation of quality of life in clinical trials: Selecting quality of life measures

    Con Clin Trial

    (1991)
  • GH Guyatt et al.

    Measuring disease-specific quality of life in clinical trials

    CMAJ

    (1986)
  • GH Guyatt et al.

    Measuring quality of life in clinical trials: a taxonomy and review

    CMAJ

    (1989)
  • AB Bindman et al.

    Measuring health changes among severely ill patients

    Medical Care

    (1990)
  • RA Deyo

    Comparative validity of the sickness impact profile and shorter-scales for functional assessment in low-back pain

    Spine

    (1986)
  • Cited by (362)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Ms. D. Beaton was supported by the Institute for Work & Health Clinical Research Fellowship for this project.

    View full text