Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:15747207rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0025663lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15747207lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0678226lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15747207lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1274040lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15747207lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1280500lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15747207lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1511726lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15747207lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C2745955lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15747207lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1707357lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15747207lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0038951lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15747207lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C2699638lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15747207lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1705492lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:issue2lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:dateCreated2005-3-4lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:abstractTextItem non-response is a potential threat to the validity of study results. Taking the somatisation subscale of the SCL-90-R as an example, we hypothesise a specific response pattern ("checklist-effect") that is characterised by symptom-free persons not checking the "not at all"-category. The present study analyses the extent and relevance of this postulated "checklist-effect". Our data is derived from a survey of n = 228 blue-collar workers who previously had filed applications for medical rehabilitation benefits (A1-study), and two additional surveys as well. We defined the "checklist-effect" by the following response pattern: (1) at least one missing value and (2) at least one valid item response and (3) no "not at all"-responses. Occurrence of the "checklist-effect" in the three datasets differed widely. 75 % of the responders in the A1-Study had complete data, 16.2 % a postulated "checklist-effect". Imputation of missing values under the assumption of a "checklist-effect" led to a reduction of missing data in the somatisation-subscale from 12.3 % to 0.4 %. Ignoring the "checklist-effect" would overestimate the symptom level. Possible explanations for the effect are discussed. However, the validity of this effect has yet to be proven via methodological studies.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:languagegerlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:monthFeblld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:issn0941-3790lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:authorpubmed-author:MeyerTTlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:authorpubmed-author:KohlmannTTlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:authorpubmed-author:SchäferIIlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:authorpubmed-author:RaspeHHlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:authorpubmed-author:DeckRRlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:authorpubmed-author:MittagOOlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:authorpubmed-author:MatthisCClld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:volume67lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:pagination155-8lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:dateRevised2006-11-15lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15747207...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15747207...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15747207...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15747207...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15747207...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15747207...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15747207...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15747207...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15747207...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15747207...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15747207...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15747207...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15747207...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15747207...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15747207...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15747207...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15747207...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15747207...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:year2005lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:articleTitle[Missing data in the somatisation subscale of the scl-90-R due to a 'checklist effect': occurrence in different surveys and results of various imputation methods].lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:affiliationInstitut für Sozialmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck. oskar.mittag@sozmed.uni-luebeck.delld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:publicationTypeEnglish Abstractlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15747207pubmed:publicationTypeEvaluation Studieslld:pubmed