Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Response Mean (response + mean)
Selected AbstractsAgreement between parent and child report of quality of life in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorderCHILD: CARE, HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT, Issue 4 2006A. F. Klassen Abstract Background There is little information in the research literature of agreement between parent and child in reports of child quality of life (QOL) for a sample of children diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The aim of our study was to determine whether parent and child concordance is greater for physical domains of QOL than for psychosocial domains; whether parents rate their child's QOL better or poorer than their child's ratings; and whether concordance is related to demographic, socioeconomic or clinical factors. Methods The study was a questionnaire survey of children aged 10,17 referred to the ADHD clinic and diagnosed with ADHD in the province of British Columbia (Canada) between November 2001 and October 2002 and their parent. Results Fifty-eight children diagnosed with ADHD and their parents completed our study questionnaire. The main outcome measure was the Child Health Questionnaire, which permitted comparisons on eight QOL domains and one single item. Intraclass correlation coefficients were moderate for five domains (range from 0.40 to 0.51), and good for three domains (range from 0.60 to 0.75). Children rated their QOL significantly better than their parents in four areas and poorer in one. Standardized Response Means indicated clinically important differences in mean scores for Behaviour and Self-esteem. Compared with population norms, across most domains, children with ADHD reported comparable health. Discrepancies between parent,child ratings were related to the presence of a comorbid oppositional/defiant disorder, a psychosocial stressor and increased ADHD symptoms. Conclusions Although self-report is an important means of eliciting QOL data, in children with ADHD, given the discrepancies in this study between parent and child report, measuring both perspectives seems appropriate. [source] Validation of a 7-point Global Overall Symptom scale to measure the severity of dyspepsia symptoms in clinical trialsALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, Issue 4 2006S. J. O. VELDHUYZEN VAN ZANTEN Summary Background, Currently there is no consensus on the optimal method to measure the severity of dyspepsia symptoms in clinical trials. Aim, To validate the 7-point Global Overall Symptom scale. Methods, The Global Overall Symptom scale uses a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = no problem to 7 = a very severe problem. Validation was performed in two randomized-controlled trials (n = 1121 and 512). Construct validity: Global Overall Symptom was compared with the Quality of Life in Reflux And Dyspepsia, Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale, Reflux Disease Questionnaire and 10 specific symptoms using Spearman correlation coefficients. Test,retest reliability: The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was calculated for patients with stable dyspepsia defined by no change in Overall Treatment Effect score over two visits. Responsiveness: effect size and standardized response mean were also calculated. Results, Construct validity: Change in Global Overall Symptom score correlated significantly with Quality of Life for Reflux And Dyspepsia, Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale, Reflux Disease Questionnaire and specific symptoms (all P < 0.0002). Reliability: The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was 0.62 (n = 205) and 0.42 (n = 270). Responsiveness: There was a positive correlation between change in Global Overall Symptom and change in symptom severity. The effect size and standardized response mean were 1.1 and 2.1, respectively. Conclusion, The Global Overall Symptom scale is a simple, valid outcome measure for dyspepsia treatment trials. [source] Reliability, validity and responsiveness of a new leisure index: The Patient-Specific Leisure Scale (PSLS)MUSCULOSKELETAL CARE, Issue 3 2009Ingegerd Wikström Abstract Objectives:,To investigate the reliability, validity and responsiveness of a new Patient-Specific Leisure Scale (PSLS), constructed to identify goals and outcomes for individual patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods:,Forty-nine patients with RA were used to evaluate test,retest reliability, and 100 consecutive RA patients were used for construct validity. Twenty-five RA patients, commencing with treatment on tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, were evaluated before the start and after three months of therapy, to test responsiveness. The most important leisure activity (as judged by the patients) was used when evaluating reliability and validity. The perceived difficulty with each activity was scored from 0 to 10 (0 = able to perform activity without difficulty, 10 = unable to perform activity). Results:,Test,retest reliability indicated a good agreement (0.62,0.87) using weighted kappa. Construct validity was demonstrated by modest positive correlation between leisure activity and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) (rs = 0.27, p = 0.005) visual analogue scale (VAS) pain (rs = 0.28, p = 0.004) VAS global (rs = 0.22, p = 0.027), VAS fatigue (rs = 0.24, p = 0.013), joint index of 28 swollen joints (rs = 0.22, p = 0.027) and negative correlations with short-form-36 (SF-36) physical functioning (rs = ,0.18, p = 0.008), bodily pain (rs = ,0.31, p < 0.001), general health (rs = ,0.23, p = 0.019), vitality (rs = ,0.31, p < 0.001), social function (rs = ,0.24, p = 0.016) and role-emotional (rs = ,0.28, p = 0.005). Mean improvement for the most important leisure activity was 1.36, (p = 0.036, 95% confidence interval 0.10,2.62). Standardized response mean and effect size for the most important activity in PSLS was 1.05 and 0.72, respectively, and for HAQ 0.34 and 0.28, respectively. Conclusions:,PSLS appears to be feasible, reliable, valid and responsive for measuring leisure activities in RA. It provides both an individual result which is useful in clinical work, and results at a group level. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Screening for distress in cancer patients: is the distress thermometer a valid measure in the UK and does it measure change over time?PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY, Issue 6 2008A prospective validation study Abstract A prospective validation study was conducted in 171 consenting patients from oncology and palliative care outpatient clinics to validate the Distress Thermometer (DT) against the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) and Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18) at baseline, four weeks and eight weeks. Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis was used to examine the sensitivity and specificity of the DT scores against the clinically significant cut-off scores of the criterion measures reporting 95% confidence intervals. Standardised response means were used to compare DT scores with criterion measures over time. For a cut-off of 4 vs 5, sensitivity against HADS was 79%, specificity 81%; against GHQ-12, sensitivity was 63%, specificity 83%; and against BSI-18, sensitivity was 88%, specificity 74%. At both four and eight weeks, DT scores tended to change significantly in the same direction as the criterion measures. Ninety-five percent of patients found completing the DT acceptable. The DT is valid and acceptable for use as a rapid screening instrument for patients in the UK with cancer. Our results indicate that it can be used to monitor change in psychological distress over time, but further work is needed to confirm this. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Measuring the quality of clinical audit projectsJOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, Issue 4 2000Andrew D. Millard MSc Abstract The aim of the study was to develop and pilot a scale measuring the quality of audit projects through audit project reports. Statements about clinical audit projects were selected from existing instruments assessing the quality of clinical audit projects to form a Likert scale. Audit facilitators based in Scottish health boards and trusts piloted the scale. The participants were known to have over 2 years of experience of supporting clinical audit. The response at first test was 11 of 14 and at the second test 27 of 46. Audit facilitators tested the draft scale by expressing their strength of agreement or disagreement with each statement for three reports. Validity and reliability were assessed by test , re-test, item , total, and total , global indicator correlation. Of the 20 statements, 15 had satisfactory correlation with scale totals. Scale totals had good correlation with global indicators. Test , re-test correlation was modest. The wide range of responses means further research is needed to measure the consistency of audit facilitators' interpretations, perhaps comparing a trained group with an untrained group. There may be a need for a separate scale for reaudits. Educational impact is distinct from project impact generally. It may be more meaningful to treat the selection of projects and aims, methodology and impact separately as subscales and take a project profiling approach rather than attempting to produce a global quality index. [source] | ||||||||||