PubMed · 16085603
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Bertram Zarins. 2005. Are validated questionnaires valid?. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.e.00554
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
STUDY DESIGN: Meta-synthesis of qualitative research. OBJECTIVES: To identify, compare and synthesize the factors found to contribute to, or detract from the experience of a life worth living following spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: Published articles were identified from the Medline, CINAHL and Sociological Abstracts databases, a hand search through selected journals published since 1990, and from reference lists. These were assessed for their relevance to the focus of interest and appraised for rigour and quality. The key themes that emerged from the data were summarized, compared and synthesized. RESULTS: The search located 64 papers and four books, of which seven papers met the review criteria for relevance and rigour, and in which 10 main concepts were identified: (1) body problems, (2) loss, (3) relationships, (4) responsibility for, and control of one's life, (5) occupation, and ability to contribute, (6) environmental context, (7) new values/perspective transformation, (8) good and bad days, (9) self-worth, (10) self-continuity. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the utility of synthesizing qualitative research to provide a greater depth of insight into the factors that contribute to, and detract from, quality of life (QOL) after SCI. It also provides a more nuanced understanding of the experience of QOL following SCI than is achievable by quantitative methods. Future qualitative research is required to probe further the concepts and connections identified in this study, and to identify how rehabilitation services might best address these issues.
BACKGROUND: Minimally important changes (MIC) in scores help interpret results from health status instruments. Various distribution-based and anchor-based approaches have been proposed to assess MIC. OBJECTIVES: To describe and apply a visual method, called the anchor-based MIC distribution method, which integrates both approaches. METHOD: Using an anchor, patients are categorized as persons with an important improvement, an important deterioration, or without important change. For these three groups the distribution of the change scores on the health status instrument are depicted in a graph. We present two cut-off points for an MIC: the ROC cut-off point and the 95% limit cut-off point. RESULTS: We illustrate our anchor-based MIC distribution method determining the MIC for the Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale in patients with low back pain, using two conceivable definitions of minimal important change on the anchor. The graph shows the distribution of the scores of the health status instrument for the relevant categories on the anchor, and also the consequences of choosing the ROC cut-off point or the 95% limit cut-off point. DISCUSSION: The anchor-based MIC distribution method provides a general framework, applicable to all kind of anchors. This method forces researchers to choose and justify their choice of an appropriate anchor and to define minimal importance on that anchor. The MIC is not an invariable characteristic of a measurement instrument, but may depend, among other things, on the perspective from which minimal importance is considered and the baseline values on the measurement instrument under study. A balance needs to be struck between the practicality of a single MIC value and the validity of a range of MIC values.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.