title: Agreement between pre-post measures of change and transition ratings as well as then-tests.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Different approaches have been developed for measuring change. Direct measurement of change (transition ratings) requires asking a patient directly about his judgment about the change he has experienced (reported change). With indirect measures of change, the patients' status is assessed at different time points and differences between them are calculated (measured change). When using the quasi-indirect approach ('then-test'), patients are asked after an intervention to rate their statuses both before the intervention as well as at the time of the enquiry. Associations previous studies have found between the different approaches might be biased because transition ratings are generally assessed using a single, general item, while indirect measures of change are generally based on multi-item scales. We aimed to quantify the agreement between indirect and direct as well as indirect and quasi-indirect measures of change while using multi-item scales exclusively. We explored possible reasons for non-agreement (present-state bias, recall bias).
  
  
  METHODS
  We re-analysed a data set originally collected to investigate the prognostic validity of different approaches of change measurements. Patients from a 3-week inpatient rehabilitation programme for either cardiac or musculoskeletal disorders filled in health-status questionnaires (which included scales for sleep function, physical function, and somatisation) both at admission and at discharge. The patients were then randomised to receive either an additional transition-rating or then-test questionnaire at discharge.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Out of 426 patients, 395 (92.7%) completed all questionnaires. Correlation coefficients between indirect and quasi-indirect measures of change ranged from r = .60 to r = .71, compared to r = .37 to r = .48 between indirect and direct measures of change. Correlation coefficients between pre-test and retrospective pre-test (then-test) results ranged from r = .69 to r = .82, indicating a low level of recall bias. Pre-test variation accounted for a substantial amount of variance in transition ratings in addition to the post-test scores, indicating a low level of present-state bias.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Indirect and quasi-indirect measurements of change yielded comparable results indicating that recall bias does not necessarily affect quasi-indirect measurement of change. Quasi-indirect measurement might serve as a substitute for pre-post measurement under conditions still to be specified. Transition ratings reflect different aspects of change than indirect and quasi-indirect methods do, but are not necessarily biased by patients' present states.
authors.affiliation: Integrative Rehabilitation Research Unit, Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. meyer.thorsten@mh-hannover.de
authors.forename: Thorsten
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Meyer
authors.forename: Susanne
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Richter
authors.forename: Heiner
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Raspe
mesh_terms: D006305:Health Status Indicators; D006331:Heart Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000503:physiopathology; D006801:Humans; D009140:Musculoskeletal Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000503:physiopathology; D010043:Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires
references.citation: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Dec;86(12):2270-6
references.pmid: 16344022
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 Sep;55(9):900-8
references.pmid: 12393078
references.citation: Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2012 Apr;51(2):118-28
references.pmid: 21647852
references.citation: Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 1992 May;31(2):73-9
references.pmid: 1636048
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Dec;58(12):1217-9
references.pmid: 16291464
references.citation: Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 1998 Jun;37 Suppl 1:S30-7
references.pmid: 9706112
references.citation: Med Care. 1995 Apr;33(4 Suppl):AS77-88
references.pmid: 7723463
references.citation: Depress Anxiety. 2012 Sep;29(9):797-806
references.pmid: 22585578
references.citation: Eur J Pain. 2007 May;11(4):387-97
references.pmid: 16793296
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 May;59(5):503-11
references.pmid: 16632139
references.citation: Med Care. 2007 Mar;45(3):199-205
references.pmid: 17304076
references.citation: Br J Gen Pract. 2002 Apr;52(477):269-74
references.pmid: 11942442
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 1991;32(9):981-7
references.pmid: 2047902
references.citation: Clin Rehabil. 2010 Nov;24(11):1036-44
references.pmid: 20702509
references.citation: Qual Life Res. 2006 Nov;15(9):1533-50
references.pmid: 17031503
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Jan;51(1):11-8
references.pmid: 9467630
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;63(7):760-766.e1
references.pmid: 20056385
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Jun;61(6):603-8
references.pmid: 18471664
references.citation: Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004 Mar 15;2:14
references.pmid: 15023229
references.citation: Soz Praventivmed. 2006;51(1):34-42
references.pmid: 16898236
references.citation: Med Care. 1990 Jul;28(7):632-42
references.pmid: 2366602
references.citation: J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 2002 Jan-Feb;22(1):47-52
references.pmid: 11839997
references.citation: Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2010 Dec;49(6):356-67
references.pmid: 21140319