Middel Berrie, Goudriaan Heike, de Greef Mathieu, Stewart Roy, van Sonderen Eric, Bouma J, de Jongste Mike
Department of Health Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 196, 9700 AD Groningen, The Netherlands.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 May;59(5):503-11. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.08.018. Epub 2006 Mar 13.
It was hypothesized that within an invasively treated group and within a group that improved in angina pectoris no difference in effect size would occur between prospective and retrospective measures. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that assessment of perceived change at post-test may be invalid because of recall bias and present-state bias.
Effect sizes (as standardized response means) were used as indicators of magnitude of change. Linear structural equation analysis (with LISREL) was used to investigate the relationship between the estimates of recall accuracy and retrospectively assessed change.
No significant differences were found between prospective and retrospective measures of change over time in health-related functional status. Recall bias was not associated with retrospective measurement of change within a 12-week interval. An expected present-state effect was found in a structural equation model.
Prospective and retrospective indices of magnitude of change were similar between groups receiving treatment of known efficacy. Recall bias seems to be an acceptable risk in short-term follow-up studies.
研究假设，在接受侵入性治疗的组以及心绞痛症状有所改善的组中，前瞻性测量与回顾性测量的效应量不会存在差异。此外，研究还假设，由于回忆偏差和现况偏差，测试后对感知变化的评估可能无效。
效应量（作为标准化反应均值）被用作变化幅度的指标。采用线性结构方程分析（使用LISREL）来研究回忆准确性估计值与回顾性评估变化之间的关系。
在健康相关功能状态随时间变化的前瞻性测量与回顾性测量之间未发现显著差异。在12周的时间间隔内，回忆偏差与变化的回顾性测量无关。在结构方程模型中发现了预期的现况效应。
在接受已知疗效治疗的组之间，变化幅度的前瞻性和回顾性指标相似。在短期随访研究中，回忆偏差似乎是一个可接受的风险。
