Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores

Jeff A Sloan, Neil Aaronson, Joseph C. Cappelleri, Diane L. Fairclough, Claudette Varricchio, Ivan Barofsky, Rick Berzon, Amy Bonomi, Monika Bullinger, David Cella, Carol Estwing Ferrans, Marlene Frost, Gordon Guyatt, Ron D. Hays, Patrick Marquis, Carol M. Moinpour, Tim Moynihan, Geoff Norman, David Osoba, Donald PatrickDennis Revicki, Teresa Rummans, Charles Scott, Mirjam Sprangers, Tara Symonds, Gilbert Wong, Albert Wu, Kathleen Wyrwich

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

201 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

How many items are needed to measure an individual's quality of life (QOL)? This article describes the strengths and weaknesses of single items and summated scores (from multiple items) as QOL measures. We also address the use of single global measures vs multiple subindices as measures of QOL. The primary themes that recur throughout this article are the relationships between well-defined research objectives, the research setting, and the choice single item vs summated scores to measure QOL. The conceptual framework of the study, the conceptual fit with the measure, and the purpose of the assessment should all be considered when choosing a measure of QOL. No "gold standard" QOL measure can be recommended because no "one size fits all." Single items have the advantage of simplicity at the cost of detail. Multiple-item indices have the advantage of providing a complete profile of QOL component constructs at the cost of increased burden and of asking potentially irrelevant questions. The 2 types of indices are not mutually exclusive and can be used together in a single research study or in the clinical setting.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)479-487
Number of pages9
JournalMayo Clinic Proceedings
Volume77
Issue number5
StatePublished - 2002

Fingerprint

Quality of Life
Research

Keywords

  • COOP/WONCA = Primary Care Cooperative Information Project/World Organization of National Colleges, Academies, and Academic Associations of General Practitioners/Family Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Sloan, J. A., Aaronson, N., Cappelleri, J. C., Fairclough, D. L., Varricchio, C., Barofsky, I., ... Wyrwich, K. (2002). Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77(5), 479-487.

Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores. / Sloan, Jeff A; Aaronson, Neil; Cappelleri, Joseph C.; Fairclough, Diane L.; Varricchio, Claudette; Barofsky, Ivan; Berzon, Rick; Bonomi, Amy; Bullinger, Monika; Cella, David; Ferrans, Carol Estwing; Frost, Marlene; Guyatt, Gordon; Hays, Ron D.; Marquis, Patrick; Moinpour, Carol M.; Moynihan, Tim; Norman, Geoff; Osoba, David; Patrick, Donald; Revicki, Dennis; Rummans, Teresa; Scott, Charles; Sprangers, Mirjam; Symonds, Tara; Wong, Gilbert; Wu, Albert; Wyrwich, Kathleen.

In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Vol. 77, No. 5, 2002, p. 479-487.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sloan, JA, Aaronson, N, Cappelleri, JC, Fairclough, DL, Varricchio, C, Barofsky, I, Berzon, R, Bonomi, A, Bullinger, M, Cella, D, Ferrans, CE, Frost, M, Guyatt, G, Hays, RD, Marquis, P, Moinpour, CM, Moynihan, T, Norman, G, Osoba, D, Patrick, D, Revicki, D, Rummans, T, Scott, C, Sprangers, M, Symonds, T, Wong, G, Wu, A & Wyrwich, K 2002, 'Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores', Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 77, no. 5, pp. 479-487.
Sloan JA, Aaronson N, Cappelleri JC, Fairclough DL, Varricchio C, Barofsky I et al. Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2002;77(5):479-487.
Sloan, Jeff A ; Aaronson, Neil ; Cappelleri, Joseph C. ; Fairclough, Diane L. ; Varricchio, Claudette ; Barofsky, Ivan ; Berzon, Rick ; Bonomi, Amy ; Bullinger, Monika ; Cella, David ; Ferrans, Carol Estwing ; Frost, Marlene ; Guyatt, Gordon ; Hays, Ron D. ; Marquis, Patrick ; Moinpour, Carol M. ; Moynihan, Tim ; Norman, Geoff ; Osoba, David ; Patrick, Donald ; Revicki, Dennis ; Rummans, Teresa ; Scott, Charles ; Sprangers, Mirjam ; Symonds, Tara ; Wong, Gilbert ; Wu, Albert ; Wyrwich, Kathleen. / Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores. In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2002 ; Vol. 77, No. 5. pp. 479-487.
@article{94dff83c1413493b9fdc9e191818320d,
title = "Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores",
abstract = "How many items are needed to measure an individual's quality of life (QOL)? This article describes the strengths and weaknesses of single items and summated scores (from multiple items) as QOL measures. We also address the use of single global measures vs multiple subindices as measures of QOL. The primary themes that recur throughout this article are the relationships between well-defined research objectives, the research setting, and the choice single item vs summated scores to measure QOL. The conceptual framework of the study, the conceptual fit with the measure, and the purpose of the assessment should all be considered when choosing a measure of QOL. No {"}gold standard{"} QOL measure can be recommended because no {"}one size fits all.{"} Single items have the advantage of simplicity at the cost of detail. Multiple-item indices have the advantage of providing a complete profile of QOL component constructs at the cost of increased burden and of asking potentially irrelevant questions. The 2 types of indices are not mutually exclusive and can be used together in a single research study or in the clinical setting.",
keywords = "COOP/WONCA = Primary Care Cooperative Information Project/World Organization of National Colleges, Academies, and Academic Associations of General Practitioners/Family Physicians",
author = "Sloan, {Jeff A} and Neil Aaronson and Cappelleri, {Joseph C.} and Fairclough, {Diane L.} and Claudette Varricchio and Ivan Barofsky and Rick Berzon and Amy Bonomi and Monika Bullinger and David Cella and Ferrans, {Carol Estwing} and Marlene Frost and Gordon Guyatt and Hays, {Ron D.} and Patrick Marquis and Moinpour, {Carol M.} and Tim Moynihan and Geoff Norman and David Osoba and Donald Patrick and Dennis Revicki and Teresa Rummans and Charles Scott and Mirjam Sprangers and Tara Symonds and Gilbert Wong and Albert Wu and Kathleen Wyrwich",
year = "2002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "77",
pages = "479--487",
journal = "Mayo Clinic Proceedings",
issn = "0025-6196",
publisher = "Elsevier Science",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores

AU - Sloan, Jeff A

AU - Aaronson, Neil

AU - Cappelleri, Joseph C.

AU - Fairclough, Diane L.

AU - Varricchio, Claudette

AU - Barofsky, Ivan

AU - Berzon, Rick

AU - Bonomi, Amy

AU - Bullinger, Monika

AU - Cella, David

AU - Ferrans, Carol Estwing

AU - Frost, Marlene

AU - Guyatt, Gordon

AU - Hays, Ron D.

AU - Marquis, Patrick

AU - Moinpour, Carol M.

AU - Moynihan, Tim

AU - Norman, Geoff

AU - Osoba, David

AU - Patrick, Donald

AU - Revicki, Dennis

AU - Rummans, Teresa

AU - Scott, Charles

AU - Sprangers, Mirjam

AU - Symonds, Tara

AU - Wong, Gilbert

AU - Wu, Albert

AU - Wyrwich, Kathleen

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - How many items are needed to measure an individual's quality of life (QOL)? This article describes the strengths and weaknesses of single items and summated scores (from multiple items) as QOL measures. We also address the use of single global measures vs multiple subindices as measures of QOL. The primary themes that recur throughout this article are the relationships between well-defined research objectives, the research setting, and the choice single item vs summated scores to measure QOL. The conceptual framework of the study, the conceptual fit with the measure, and the purpose of the assessment should all be considered when choosing a measure of QOL. No "gold standard" QOL measure can be recommended because no "one size fits all." Single items have the advantage of simplicity at the cost of detail. Multiple-item indices have the advantage of providing a complete profile of QOL component constructs at the cost of increased burden and of asking potentially irrelevant questions. The 2 types of indices are not mutually exclusive and can be used together in a single research study or in the clinical setting.

AB - How many items are needed to measure an individual's quality of life (QOL)? This article describes the strengths and weaknesses of single items and summated scores (from multiple items) as QOL measures. We also address the use of single global measures vs multiple subindices as measures of QOL. The primary themes that recur throughout this article are the relationships between well-defined research objectives, the research setting, and the choice single item vs summated scores to measure QOL. The conceptual framework of the study, the conceptual fit with the measure, and the purpose of the assessment should all be considered when choosing a measure of QOL. No "gold standard" QOL measure can be recommended because no "one size fits all." Single items have the advantage of simplicity at the cost of detail. Multiple-item indices have the advantage of providing a complete profile of QOL component constructs at the cost of increased burden and of asking potentially irrelevant questions. The 2 types of indices are not mutually exclusive and can be used together in a single research study or in the clinical setting.

KW - COOP/WONCA = Primary Care Cooperative Information Project/World Organization of National Colleges, Academies, and Academic Associations of General Practitioners/Family Physicians

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036237930&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036237930&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 12004998

AN - SCOPUS:0036237930

VL - 77

SP - 479

EP - 487

JO - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

JF - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

SN - 0025-6196

IS - 5

ER -