Group vs individual approaches to understanding the clinical significance of differences or changes in quality of life
Group vs individual approaches to understanding the clinical significance of differences or changes in quality of life
复制标题
DOI：
10.4065/77.4.384
复制
发表时间：
2002-04-01
影响因子：
8.9
通讯作者：
Barofsky, I
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cella, D;Bullinger, M;Barofsky, I
这篇文章的重点是遍历组和个人水平的生活质量数据。使用演绎方法来确定组数据可用于估计个体水平的临床意义的程度。使用归纳法评价个体变化数据可被带到组水平以定义临床意义的程度。这两种方法都有优点和缺点。本文讨论了当有意义的阈值来自于组数据时，如何为个体定义临床意义。它还解决了一个条件下，可以使用相同的阈值差异组与个人的差异或变化。一个样本归纳法探索了识别临床显著结果或变化的方法，并使用了认知心理学的见解。在大多数演绎方法中，识别临床显著差异或变化需要识别一个标准（或至少一个可解释的锚），并与应答者评分变化的显著性进行比较。
This article focuses on the traversing of group and individual levels of quality-of-life data. A deductive approach is used to address the extent to which group data can be used to estimate clinical significance at the individual level. An inductive approach is used to evaluate the extent to which individual change data can be brought to the group level to define clinical significance. Both approaches have benefits and drawbacks. This article addresses how clinical significance can be defined for an individual when the threshold for meaningfulness is drawn from group data. It also addresses the condition under which one can use the same threshold difference for group vs individual differences or changes. A sample inductive approach explores the means to identify a clinically significant result or change, with use of insights from cognitive psychology. In most deductive approaches, the identification of a clinically significant difference or change requires identification of a criterion (or at least an interpretable anchor) against which the significance of a change in respondent score is compared.