Cargando…

Internal consistency reliability is a poor predictor of responsiveness

BACKGROUND: Whether responsiveness represents a measurement property of health-related quality of life (HRQL) instruments that is distinct from reliability and validity is an issue of debate. We addressed the claims of a recent study, which suggested that investigators could rely on internal consist...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Puhan, Milo A, Bryant, Dianne, Guyatt, Gordon H, Heels-Ansdell, Diane, Schünemann, Holger J
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2005
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1156927/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15877824
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-3-33
_version_ 1782124336622075904
author Puhan, Milo A
Bryant, Dianne
Guyatt, Gordon H
Heels-Ansdell, Diane
Schünemann, Holger J
author_facet Puhan, Milo A
Bryant, Dianne
Guyatt, Gordon H
Heels-Ansdell, Diane
Schünemann, Holger J
author_sort Puhan, Milo A
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Whether responsiveness represents a measurement property of health-related quality of life (HRQL) instruments that is distinct from reliability and validity is an issue of debate. We addressed the claims of a recent study, which suggested that investigators could rely on internal consistency to reflect instrument responsiveness. METHODS: 516 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or knee injury participating in four longitudinal studies completed generic and disease-specific HRQL questionnaires before and after an intervention that impacted on HRQL. We used Pearson correlation coefficients and linear regression to assess the relationship between internal consistency reliability (expressed as Cronbach's alpha), instrument type (generic and disease-specific) and responsiveness (expressed as the standardised response mean, SRM). RESULTS: Mean Cronbach's alpha was 0.83 (SD 0.08) and mean SRM was 0.59 (SD 0.33). The correlation between Cronbach's alpha and SRMs was 0.10 (95% CI -0.12 to 0.32) across all studies. Cronbach's alpha alone did not explain variability in SRMs (p = 0.59, r(2 )= 0.01) whereas the type of instrument was a strong predictor of the SRM (p = 0.012, r(2 )= 0.37). In multivariable models applied to individual studies Cronbach's alpha consistently failed to predict SRMs (regression coefficients between -0.45 and 1.58, p-values between 0.15 and 0.98) whereas the type of instrument did predict SRMs (regression coefficients between -0.25 to -0.59, p-values between <0.01 and 0.05). CONCLUSION: Investigators must look to data other than internal consistency reliability to select a responsive instrument for use as an outcome in clinical trials.
format Text
id pubmed-1156927
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2005
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-11569272005-06-22 Internal consistency reliability is a poor predictor of responsiveness Puhan, Milo A Bryant, Dianne Guyatt, Gordon H Heels-Ansdell, Diane Schünemann, Holger J Health Qual Life Outcomes Research BACKGROUND: Whether responsiveness represents a measurement property of health-related quality of life (HRQL) instruments that is distinct from reliability and validity is an issue of debate. We addressed the claims of a recent study, which suggested that investigators could rely on internal consistency to reflect instrument responsiveness. METHODS: 516 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or knee injury participating in four longitudinal studies completed generic and disease-specific HRQL questionnaires before and after an intervention that impacted on HRQL. We used Pearson correlation coefficients and linear regression to assess the relationship between internal consistency reliability (expressed as Cronbach's alpha), instrument type (generic and disease-specific) and responsiveness (expressed as the standardised response mean, SRM). RESULTS: Mean Cronbach's alpha was 0.83 (SD 0.08) and mean SRM was 0.59 (SD 0.33). The correlation between Cronbach's alpha and SRMs was 0.10 (95% CI -0.12 to 0.32) across all studies. Cronbach's alpha alone did not explain variability in SRMs (p = 0.59, r(2 )= 0.01) whereas the type of instrument was a strong predictor of the SRM (p = 0.012, r(2 )= 0.37). In multivariable models applied to individual studies Cronbach's alpha consistently failed to predict SRMs (regression coefficients between -0.45 and 1.58, p-values between 0.15 and 0.98) whereas the type of instrument did predict SRMs (regression coefficients between -0.25 to -0.59, p-values between <0.01 and 0.05). CONCLUSION: Investigators must look to data other than internal consistency reliability to select a responsive instrument for use as an outcome in clinical trials. BioMed Central 2005-05-09 /pmc/articles/PMC1156927/ /pubmed/15877824 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-3-33 Text en Copyright © 2005 Puhan et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Puhan, Milo A
Bryant, Dianne
Guyatt, Gordon H
Heels-Ansdell, Diane
Schünemann, Holger J
Internal consistency reliability is a poor predictor of responsiveness
title Internal consistency reliability is a poor predictor of responsiveness
title_full Internal consistency reliability is a poor predictor of responsiveness
title_fullStr Internal consistency reliability is a poor predictor of responsiveness
title_full_unstemmed Internal consistency reliability is a poor predictor of responsiveness
title_short Internal consistency reliability is a poor predictor of responsiveness
title_sort internal consistency reliability is a poor predictor of responsiveness
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1156927/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15877824
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-3-33
work_keys_str_mv AT puhanmiloa internalconsistencyreliabilityisapoorpredictorofresponsiveness
AT bryantdianne internalconsistencyreliabilityisapoorpredictorofresponsiveness
AT guyattgordonh internalconsistencyreliabilityisapoorpredictorofresponsiveness
AT heelsansdelldiane internalconsistencyreliabilityisapoorpredictorofresponsiveness
AT schunemannholgerj internalconsistencyreliabilityisapoorpredictorofresponsiveness