Linked Life Data

10210236

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/10210236

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
3
pubmed:dateCreated
1999-5-5
pubmed:abstractText
Patients' ratings of the severity and importance of items are often used to select items for health status instruments. The purpose of this study was to compare six different methods of combining severity-importance ratings. Two different patient groups separately rated the importance and severity of their complaints; (i) 76 patients with upper-extremity disorders rated 70 upper-extremity-related questions; and (ii) 86 patients with hip arthrosis rated 22 questions relating to their hip problem. The rank ordering of the items using the six different methods in the two populations were very similar (tau(bi) = 0.91 and 0.87, respectively). Furthermore, the six methods when used to choose 30 upper-extremity items shared 25 items in common and shared 9 (of 10) hip items in the second group. In conclusion, the results of item reduction were not affected by the method of creating importance-severity ratings.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Mar
pubmed:issn
0895-4356
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
52
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
193-7
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1999
pubmed:articleTitle
How should importance and severity ratings be combined for item reduction in the development of health status instruments?
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Surgery and Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, The Hospital for Sick Children, Ontario, Canada.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't