title: The new COSMIN guidelines confront traditional concepts of responsiveness.
abstract: The recently published "COSMIN" guidelines aim to rate properties of outcome instruments and state two issues with regard to responsiveness which is the instrument's ability to detect change over time. These issues are comparison of score changes with change of an external criterion using correlations and the judgement of traditional methods as inappropriate. The latter are the "transition" concept, a global rating of change, and parametric measures of responsiveness, for example, effect sizes. It can be shown that the methodology proposed by the guidelines has important weaknesses and that denunciation of traditional methods is not appropriate. Some claims of the guidelines about responsiveness do not match the demands of clinical reality and confront findings of numerous epidemiological studies.
authors.forename: Felix
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Angst
mesh_terms: D057189:Checklist; D003697:Delphi Technique; D006305:Health Status Indicators; D006801:Humans
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 Sep;55(9):900-8
references.pmid: 12393078
references.citation: Control Clin Trials. 1989 Dec;10(4):407-15
references.pmid: 2691207
references.citation: Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S178-89
references.pmid: 2646488
references.citation: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Mar 18;10:22
references.pmid: 20298572
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Aug;50(8):869-79
references.pmid: 9291871
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;63(7):760-766.e1
references.pmid: 20056385
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):34-42
references.pmid: 17161752
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;63(7):737-45
references.pmid: 20494804
references.citation: Qual Life Res. 2006 Mar;15(2):233-48
references.pmid: 16468079