Benaïm C, Perennou D-A, Pelissier J-Y, Daures J-P
Pôle rééducation-réadaptation, CHU de Dijon, 23, rue Gaffarel, 21000 Dijon, France.
Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2010 Feb;58(1):59-63. doi: 10.1016/j.respe.2009.09.004. Epub 2010 Jan 21.
Many clinical scales contain items that are scored separately prior to being compiled into a single score. However, if the items have different degrees of importance, they should be weighted differently before being compiled. The principal aims of this study were to show how the "analytic hierarchy process" (AHP), which has never been used for this purpose, can be applied to weighting the six items of the "London handicap scale", and to compare the AHP to the "conjoint analysis" (CA), which was previously implemented by Harwood et al. (1994) [1].
In order to assess the relative importance of the six items, we submitted AHP and CA to a group of 10 physiatrists. We compared the methods in terms of item ranking according to importance, assessment of fictitious patients based on weights determined by each method, and perceived difficulty by the physiatrist.
For both techniques, "Physical independence" (PHY) was the best-weighted item, but other ranks varied depending on the technique. AHP was better than CA in terms of accuracy (global assessment of the clinical status) and perceived difficulty.
AHP may be used to reveal the importance that experts assign to the items of a multidimensional scale, and to calculate the appropriate weights for specific items. For this purpose, AHP seems to be more accurate than CA.
许多临床量表包含在汇总成单一分数之前需分别计分的项目。然而，如果这些项目具有不同程度的重要性，那么在汇总之前应给予不同的权重。本研究的主要目的是展示从未用于此目的的“层次分析法”（AHP）如何应用于对“伦敦残疾量表”的六个项目进行加权，并将层次分析法与Harwood等人（1994年）[1]先前实施的“联合分析”（CA）进行比较。
为了评估这六个项目的相对重要性，我们将层次分析法和联合分析提交给一组10名物理治疗师。我们根据重要性对项目进行排名、基于每种方法确定的权重对虚拟患者进行评估以及物理治疗师感知的难度来比较这两种方法。
对于这两种技术，“身体独立性”（PHY）是加权最好的项目，但其他排名因技术而异。在准确性（临床状态的整体评估）和感知难度方面，层次分析法优于联合分析。
层次分析法可用于揭示专家赋予多维量表项目的重要性，并计算特定项目的适当权重。为此，层次分析法似乎比联合分析更准确。
