Stability of rating scale response category interpretations in neurological disorders.
Saved in:
| Title: | Stability of rating scale response category interpretations in neurological disorders. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Knutsson, I., Samuelson, K., Hagell, P. |
| Source: | Acta Neurologica Scandinavica. Oct2013, Vol. 128 Issue 4, p265-272. 8p. |
| Subjects: | Neurological disorders, Diagnosis of neurological disorders, Multiple sclerosis, Psychiatric rating scales, Parkinson's disease, Health outcome assessment, Neurology, Patients |
| Abstract: | Objectives Unambiguous use and interpretation of rating scale data assume that response categories are interpreted and work as intended. This study investigated the stability of interpretations of commonly used patient-reported rating scale response categories among people with neurological disorders. Materials and methods Forty-six people with neurological disorders (26 men; mean age, 57; Parkinson's disease, 50%; multiple sclerosis, 41%) indicated their interpretation of 21 response categories (representing frequencies, intensities and levels of agreement) on 100-mm visual analog scales ( VAS) at two occasions, ≥2 weeks apart. Data were analyzed using intraclass correlation and weighted Kappa ( ICC/ Κw; should be >0.4), mean/median differences, percentages agreement ( PA), and the standard error of measurement ( SEM). Results Most response categories had ICC/ Κw values <0.4. The overall average ICC/ Κw was 0.279/0.294 (frequencies, 0.224/0.255; intensities, 0.265/0.251; levels of agreement, 0.362/0.376). The mean/median difference between time points across all 21 categories was 0.43/0.5 mm (mean/median absolute difference, 3.36/9 mm). The overall average PA and SEM were 6.5% and 16.1 mm, respectively. Conclusions Stabilities in interpretations of patient-reported rating scale response categories among people with neurological disorders were generally low. Categories expressing levels of agreement showed best results, suggesting that these may be preferable when appropriate with respect to the scale and its items. Future studies should consider response category interpretations in relation to various contexts. These observations suggest caution when interpreting raw rating scale data and argue for the use of modern rating scale methodologies such as the Rasch measurement model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Acta Neurologica Scandinavica is the property of Wiley-Blackwell 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: | Objectives Unambiguous use and interpretation of rating scale data assume that response categories are interpreted and work as intended. This study investigated the stability of interpretations of commonly used patient-reported rating scale response categories among people with neurological disorders. Materials and methods Forty-six people with neurological disorders (26 men; mean age, 57; Parkinson's disease, 50%; multiple sclerosis, 41%) indicated their interpretation of 21 response categories (representing frequencies, intensities and levels of agreement) on 100-mm visual analog scales ( VAS) at two occasions, ≥2 weeks apart. Data were analyzed using intraclass correlation and weighted Kappa ( ICC/ Κw; should be >0.4), mean/median differences, percentages agreement ( PA), and the standard error of measurement ( SEM). Results Most response categories had ICC/ Κw values <0.4. The overall average ICC/ Κw was 0.279/0.294 (frequencies, 0.224/0.255; intensities, 0.265/0.251; levels of agreement, 0.362/0.376). The mean/median difference between time points across all 21 categories was 0.43/0.5 mm (mean/median absolute difference, 3.36/9 mm). The overall average PA and SEM were 6.5% and 16.1 mm, respectively. Conclusions Stabilities in interpretations of patient-reported rating scale response categories among people with neurological disorders were generally low. Categories expressing levels of agreement showed best results, suggesting that these may be preferable when appropriate with respect to the scale and its items. Future studies should consider response category interpretations in relation to various contexts. These observations suggest caution when interpreting raw rating scale data and argue for the use of modern rating scale methodologies such as the Rasch measurement model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00016314 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/ane.12117 |
