Zou Guang Yong
Robarts Clinical Trials, Robarts Research Institute, London, Ontario, Canada.
Qual Life Res. 2005 Aug;14(6):1545-52. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-0027-4.
The responsiveness of a quality of life measure has received considerable attention in the literature. A two time-point (pre-/post-) study design is usually adopted to evaluate this property when a gold standard is not available. Among many indices, Cohen's effect size and the standardized response mean (SRM) are usually computed. To interpret the results, researchers commonly appeal to an arbitrary criterion for both indices even though they are different by definition. In this paper, we demonstrate their close algebraic relationship and conceptual differences, showing that only the SRM is necessary to quantify responsiveness. To facilitate interpretation, we transform the SRM to the 'probability of change' with a value of 0.5 denoting null responsiveness and 1.0 perfect responsiveness. Simple confidence interval procedures are provided and evaluated. We also discuss the possibility of applying the results to the analysis of data from a two independent groups pre-/post- design. Two examples are provided.
生活质量测量指标的反应性在文献中受到了相当多的关注。当没有金标准时,通常采用两时间点(前/后)研究设计来评估这一特性。在众多指标中,通常会计算科恩效应量和标准化反应均值(SRM)。为了解释结果,尽管这两个指标在定义上有所不同,但研究人员通常对它们都采用一个任意的标准。在本文中,我们展示了它们紧密的代数关系和概念差异,表明仅用SRM就足以量化反应性。为便于解释,我们将SRM转换为“变化概率”,其值为0.5表示无反应性,1.0表示完全反应性。我们提供并评估了简单的置信区间程序。我们还讨论了将结果应用于两独立组前/后设计数据分析的可能性。文中给出了两个例子。