MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria
Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria
Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria
Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria
Journal Article

Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria

2004
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
This study contrasted the use of responsiveness indices at the group level vs. individual patient level. We followed a cohort of 211 patients (50% male; mean age 47.5 years; SD 14) with musculoskeletal upper extremity problems for a total of 3 months. Outcome measures included the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE), and the Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12). We calculated confidence intervals on various group-level responsiveness statistics based on effect size and correlation with global change. The proportion of patients exceeding the minimum detectable change (or reliable change proportion) and minimum important difference (MID proportion) were included as indices applicable to the individual patient. For the DASH, effect size ranged from 1.06 to 1.67 for various patient subgroups, and the reliable change and MID proportions indicated that 50%–70% of individuals exhibited change based on individual change scores. Only the SRM and reliable change proportion indicated differences among the outcome measures used in this study. The reliable change and MID proportions have an intuitive interpretation and facilitate quantitative responsiveness comparisons among outcome measures based on individual patient criteria.