Middel Berrie, van Sonderen Eric
Department of Health Sciences, Sub-Division Care Science, A. Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV Groningen, The Netherlands.
Int J Integr Care. 2002;2:e15. doi: 10.5334/ijic.65. Epub 2002 Dec 17.
This paper aims to identify problems in estimating and the interpretation of the magnitude of intervention-related change over time or responsiveness assessed with health outcome measures. Responsiveness is a problematic construct and there is no consensus on how to quantify the appropriate index to estimate change over time between baseline and post-test designs. This paper gives an overview of several responsiveness indices. Thresholds for effect size (or responsiveness index) interpretation were introduced some thirty years ago by Cohen who standardised the difference-scores (d) with the pooled standard deviation (d/SD(pooled)). However, many effect sizes (ES) have been introduced since Cohen's original work and in the formula of one of these ES, the mean change scores are standardised with the SD of those change scores (d/SD(change)). When health outcome questionnaires are used, this effect size is applied on a wide scale and is represented as the Standardized Response Mean (SRM). However, its interpretation is problematic when it is used as an estimate of magnitude of change over time and interpreted with the thresholds, set by Cohen for effect size (ES) which is based on SD(pooled). Thus, in the case of using the SRM, application of these well-known cut-off points for pooled standard deviation units namely: 'trivial' (ES < 0.20), 'small' (ES > or = 0.20 < 0.50), 'moderate' (ES > or = 0.50 < 0.80), or large (ES > or = 0.80), may lead to over- or underestimation of the magnitude of intervention-related change over time due to the correlation between baseline and outcome assessments. Consequently, taking Cohen's thresholds for granted for every version of effect size indices as estimates of intervention-related magnitude of change, may lead to over- or underestimation of this magnitude of intervention-related change over time.
本文旨在识别在评估和解释随时间变化的干预相关变化幅度或通过健康结果指标评估的反应性方面存在的问题。反应性是一个有问题的概念,对于如何量化适当的指标以估计基线和测试后设计之间随时间的变化,尚无共识。本文概述了几种反应性指标。效应大小(或反应性指标)解释的阈值大约在30年前由科恩引入,他用合并标准差(d/SD(合并))对差异分数(d)进行了标准化。然而,自科恩的原始工作以来,已经引入了许多效应大小(ES),在这些ES之一的公式中,平均变化分数用那些变化分数的标准差(d/SD(变化))进行了标准化。当使用健康结果问卷时,这种效应大小被广泛应用,并表示为标准化反应均值(SRM)。然而,当它被用作随时间变化幅度的估计并根据科恩为基于SD(合并)的效应大小(ES)设定的阈值进行解释时,其解释存在问题。因此,在使用SRM的情况下,应用这些众所周知的合并标准差单位的截断点,即:“微不足道”(ES < 0.20)、“小”(ES ≥ 0.20 < 0.50)、“中等”(ES ≥ 0.50 < 0.80)或“大”(ES ≥ 0.80),可能会由于基线和结果评估之间的相关性而导致对随时间变化的干预相关变化幅度的高估或低估。因此,将科恩的阈值视为每种效应大小指标版本对干预相关变化幅度的估计,可能会导致对随时间变化的干预相关变化幅度的高估或低估。