Basic & Clinical Cancer Research 2013. 5(4):2-9.

Response Shift in Measuring Health-related Quality of Life as Pertaining to Health: Concepts, Definitions, and Challenges
Bayan Hosseini, Saharnaz Nedjat, Kazem Zendehdel, Seyyed Reza Majdzadeh, Ali Motazeri

Abstract


As a major consequence of medical interventions, quality of life (QoL) is of great importance for patients suffering from refractory diseases, particularly cancer. The unbiased measurement of changes in QoL is thus crucial in such cases. A prevalent bias related to QoL research is the ‘response shift’ (RS) phenomenon. This review article aims to define RS and the challenges in measuring it. In addition, it addresses the methodological approaches used to measure this bias in observational and clinical studies. Response shift refers to changes in one’s health condition as a result of changes in the meaning of one’s self-evaluation. These changes result when the patient faces his/her new conditions and may be reflected as greater as or smaller than they actually are. The present article describes the individualized methods, the preference-based methods, the structural equation modeling and the then-test method used for evaluating RS, and discusses their applications. Finally, by comparing these methods, it concludes that the simplest and most efficient approach for evaluating RS is the then-test approach. By emphasizing that these methods should be applied in clinical studies, the present article describes the most important methods for evaluating RS. The effect of RS has been neglected in the majority of QoL studies. We therefore recommend taking into account the effect of RS in the interpretation of QoL changes in longitudinal studies.


Keywords


Response Shift; Then test; Quality of life

Full Text:

PDF

References


Brow JP, McGee HM, O’Boyle CA. Conceptual approaches to the as- sessment of quality of life. Psychology and Health. 1997;12(6):737-51.

Pratheepawanit N, Salek M, Finlay I. The applicability of quality-of- life assessment in palliative care: comparing two quality-of-life mea- sures. Palliative medicine. 1999;13(4):325-34.

Rees J, Clarke MG, Waldron D, O’Boyle C, Ewings P, MacDonagh RP. The measurement of response shift in patients with advanced pros- tate cancer and their partners. Health and Quality ofLife Outcomes. 2005;3(21):1-8.

Groupt W. Study protocol for the World Health Organization project to develop a Quality of Life assessment instrument (WHOQOL). Qual- ity of life Research. 1993;2(2):153-9.

ABDOLLAHPOUR I, SALIMI Y, NEDJAT SAHARNAZ JSZ. Qual- ity of life and effective factors on it among governmental staff in Bou- kan city. THE JOURNAL OF URMIA UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCINCES. 2011.

Nedjat S, Naieni KH, Mohammad K, Majdzadeh R, Montazeri A. Quality of life among an Iranian general population sample using the World Health Organization’s quality of lifeinstrument (WHOQOL- BREF). International journal of public health. 2011;56(1):55-61.

Oort FJ, Visser MR, Sprangers MA. Formal definitions of mea- surement bias and explanation bias clarify measurement and concep- tual perspectives on response shift. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2009;62(11):1126-37.

Van der Maas PJ, Van Der Wal G, Haverkate I, De Graaff CLM, Kester JGC, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, et al. Euthanasia, physician- assisted suicide, and other medical practices involving the end of life in theNetherlands, 1990–1995. New England Journal of Medicine. 1996;335(22):1699-705.

Visser MRM, Oort FJ, Sprangers MAG. Methods to detect response shift in quality of life data: a convergent validity study. Quality of Life Research. 2005;14(3):629-39.

Ubel PA, Peeters Y, Smith D. Abandoning the language of “response shift”: a plea for conceptual clarity in distinguishing scale recalibra- tion from true changes in quality of life. Quality of Life Research. 2010;19(4):465-71.

Schwartz CE, Sprangers MAG. Methodological approaches for as- sessing response shift in longitudinal health-related quality-of-life re- search. Social Science & Medicine. 1999;48(11):1531-48.

Bernhard J, Lowy A, Maibach R, Hürny C. Response shift in the perception of health for utility evaluation: an explorative investigation. European Journal of Cancer. 2001;37(14):1729-35.

Howard GS, Ralph KM, Gulanick NA, Maxwell SE, Nance DW, Gerber SK. Internal invalidity in pretest-posttest self-report evaluations and a re-evaluation ofretrospective pretests. Applied Psychological Measurement. 1979;3(1):1-23.

Nedjat S, Montazeri A, Holakouie K, Mohammad K, Majdzadeh R. Psychometric properties of the Iranian interview-administered ver- sion of the World Health Organization’s Quality of Life Questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF): a population-based study. BMC Health Services Research. 2008;8(1):61.

Sprangers MA, Schwartz CE. Integrating response shift into health- related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Social science & medicine. 1999;48(11):1507-15.

Sprangers MAG, Van Dam FSAM, Broersen J, Lodder L, Wever L, Visser MRM, et al. Revealing response shift in longitudinal re- search on fatigue: the use of the thentest approach. Acta Oncologica. 1999;38(6):709-18.

Sprangers MAG. Response-shift bias: a challenge to the assessment of patients’ quality of life in cancer clinical trials. Cancer treatment re- views. 1996;22:55-62.

Visser MR, Oort FJ, Sprangers MA. Methods to detect response shift in quality of life data: a convergent validity study. Quality of Life Research. 2005;14(3):629-39.

Wiklund I. Assessment of patient-reported outcomes in clinical tri- als: the example of health-related quality of life. Fundamental & clinical pharmacology. 2004;18(3):351-63.

Howard GS, Dailey PR, Gulanick NA. The feasibility of informed pretests in attenuating response-shift bias. Applied Psychological Mea- surement. 1979;3(4):481-94.

Dabakuyo T, Guillemin F, Conroy T, Velten M, Jolly D, Mercier M, et al. Response shift effects on measuring post-operative quality of life among breast cancer patients: a multicenter cohort study. Quality of Life Research. 2012:1-11.

Bray JH, Howard GS. Methodological considerations in the evalua- tion of a teacher-training program. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1980;72(1):62.

Jambon B, Johnson KI. Individual quality of life and clinical trials. Quality of Life Newsletter. 1997:1-2.

Ahmed S, Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Hanley JA, CohenSR. The structural equation modeling technique did not show a response shift, contrary to the results of the< i> then test and the individual- ized approaches. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2005;58(11):1125- 33.

Ditto PH, Druley JA, Moore KA, Danks JH, Smucker WD. Fates worse than death: the role of valued life activities in health-state evalu- ations. Health Psychology. 1996;15(5):332.

Millsap RE, Hartog SB. Alpha, beta, and gamma change in evalu- ation research: A structural equation approach. Journal of Applied Psy- chology. 1988;73(3):574.

Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling: Guilford press; 2011.

Donaldson GW. Structural equation models for quality of life response shifts: promises and pitfalls. Quality of life research. 2005;14(10):2345-51.

Oort FJ. Using structural equation modeling to detect response shifts and true change. Quality of Life Research. 2005;14(3):587-98.

Oort FJ, Visser MR, Sprangers M. Incorporating the Thentest into the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Approach to Response-Shift Detection. Quality of Life Research. 2003:784-.

Schwartz CE, Bode R, Repucci N, Becker J, Sprangers MA, Fayers PM. The clinical significance of adaptation to changing health: a meta- analysisof response shift. Quality of Life Research. 2006;15(9):1533- 50.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly.