Comparing patient global impression of severity and patient global impression of change to evaluate test-retest reliability of depression, non-small cell lung cancer, and asthma measures.
Saved in:
| Title: | Comparing patient global impression of severity and patient global impression of change to evaluate test-retest reliability of depression, non-small cell lung cancer, and asthma measures. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Eremenco, Sonya (AUTHOR), Chen, Wen-Hung (AUTHOR), Blum, Steven I. (AUTHOR), Bush, Elizabeth Nicole (AUTHOR), Bushnell, Donald M. (AUTHOR), DeBusk, Kendra (AUTHOR), Gater, Adam (AUTHOR), Nelsen, Linda (AUTHOR), Coons, Stephen Joel (AUTHOR), PRO Consortium’s Communication Subcommittee (CORPORATE AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Quality of Life Research. Dec2022, Vol. 31 Issue 12, p3501-3512. 12p. 9 Charts. |
| Subjects: | Lung cancer, Asthma, Research evaluation, Lung tumors, Retrospective studies, Mental depression, Quality of life |
| Abstract: | |
| Copyright of Quality of Life Research is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | <bold>Purpose: </bold>Score reproducibility is an important measurement property of fit-for-purpose patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. It is commonly assessed via test-retest reliability, and best evaluated with a stable participant sample, which can be challenging to identify in diseases with highly variable symptoms. To provide empirical evidence comparing the retrospective (patient global impression of change [PGIC]) and current state (patient global impression of severity [PGIS]) approaches to identifying a stable subgroup for test-retest analyses, 3 PRO Consortium working groups collected data using both items as anchor measures.<bold>Methods: </bold>The PGIS was completed on Day 1 and Day 8 + 3 for the depression and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) studies, and daily for the asthma study and compared between Day 3 and 10. The PGIC was completed on the final day in each study. Scores were compared using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for participants who reported "no change" between timepoints for each anchor.<bold>Results: </bold>ICCs using the PGIS "no change" group were higher for depression (0.84 vs. 0.74), nighttime asthma (0.95 vs. 0.53) and daytime asthma (0.86 vs. 0.68) compared to the PGIC "no change" group. ICCs were similar for NSCLC (PGIS: 0.87; PGIC: 0.85).<bold>Conclusion: </bold>When considering anchor measures to identify a stable subgroup for test-retest reliability analyses, current state anchors perform better than retrospective anchors. Researchers should carefully consider the type of anchor selected, the time period covered, and should ensure anchor content is consistent with the target measure concept, as well as inclusion of both current and retrospective anchor measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 09629343 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11136-022-03180-5 |
