THE ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF METHOD COMPARISON STUDIES IN REHABILITATION RESEARCH
THE ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF METHOD COMPARISON STUDIES IN REHABILITATION RESEARCH
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/00002060-199310000-00003
复制
发表时间：
1993-10-01
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
STULL, GA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
OTTENBACHER, KJ;STULL, GA
康复研究人员经常对比较两项测试的结果感兴趣，这两项测试衡量的是相同的功能。有一种以上的方法来评估一个特定的功能组成部分，既有实际的好处，也有经济上的好处。检验两种检验结果的调查被称为方法比较研究，通常使用皮尔逊积矩相关系数(R)进行分析。一些研究人员辩称，皮尔逊r是变量之间线性关联(协变)的衡量标准，并不提供对直接一致性的准确估计。我们比较了几种常用的量化方法来建立一致性，并证明了皮尔逊r不适合用于目的是确定两种工具是否可互换的研究。提出了一种分析方法比较研究数据的皮尔逊r的替代方法。这种新的方法被称为符合度限值法，计算简单，强调两种器械(或评分者)的临床可比性，而不是仅仅关注统计关系。
Rehabilitation researchers are frequently interested in comparing the results of two tests that measure the same function. There are practical as well as financial advantages to having more than one method of assessing a particular component of function. Investigations examining the results of two tests are referred to as method comparison studies and commonly analyzed using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r). Several researchers have argued that the Pearson r is a measure of linear association (co-variation) between variables and does not provide accurate estimates of direct agreement. We compared several commonly used quantitative methods to establish agreement and have demonstrated that the Pearson r is not appropriate for use in studies where the purpose is to determine whether two instruments are interchangeable. An alternative to the Pearson r for analyzing data from method comparison studies is presented. The new procedure, referred to as the limits of agreement method, is easy to compute and emphasizes the clinical comparability of two instruments (or raters) instead of focusing solely on the statistical relationship.