Abstract
Study design:
A cross-sectional descriptive study was undertaken.
Objectives:
The overall objective was to explore the potential usefulness of clinicians’ and patients’ impressions of change in motor performance for clinical trials. Specifically, the aim was to compare clinicians’ and patients’ impressions of change in motor performance with standardized outcome measures in people with spinal cord injury (SCI).
Setting:
Spinal injury units, Sydney, Australia.
Methods:
Thirty people undergoing rehabilitation after recent SCI were recruited. They were assessed on two occasions separated by between 1 and 5 months. On both occasions, patients were assessed sitting unsupported (n=25), transferring (n=23) and walking (n=12) using standardized outcome measures. On the second occasion, patients rated their impressions of change in each of the three motor tasks since their initial assessment. A 15-point scale was used. In addition, patients were videoed performing the three motor tasks on the two occasions. Two clinicians with SCI experience independently viewed the pairs of videos and rated their impressions of change using the same 15-point scale. Clinicians’ and patients’ impressions of change were compared with each other and to the standardized objective measures.
Results:
Clinicians’ and patients’ impressions of change were greater than change measured with standardized objective measures for all three motor tasks (P<0.01). In addition, patients’ impressions of change were greater than clinicians’ impressions of change for transferring, but comparable for unsupported sitting and walking.
Conclusion:
Clinicians’ and patients’ impressions of change in motor performance may have potential for evaluating treatment effectiveness in clinical trials.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Middleton JW, Harvey LA, Batty J, Cameron I, Quirk R, Winstanley J . Five additional mobility and locomotor items to improve responsiveness of the FIM in wheelchair-dependent individuals with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2006; 44: 495–504.
Itzkovich M, Gelernter I, Biering-Sorensen F, Weeks C, Laramee MT, Craven BC et al. The Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) version III: reliability and validity in a multi-center international study. Disabil Rehabil 2007; 29: 1926–1933.
Barrett B, Brown D, Mundt M, Brown R . Sufficiently important difference: expanding the framework of clinical significance. Med Decis Making 2005; 25: 250–261.
Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH . Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 407–415.
Studenski S, Hayes RP, Leibowitz RQ, Bode R, Lavery L, Walston J et al. Clinical global impression of change in physical frailty: development of a measure based on clinical judgment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004; 52: 1560–1566.
Schneider LS, Olin JT . Clinical global impressions of change. Clinical global impressions in Alzheimer's clinical trials. Int Psychogeriatr 1996; 8: 277–288.
Quinn J, Moore M, Benson DF, Clark CM, Doody R, Jagust W et al. A videotaped CIBIC for dementia patients: validity and reliability in a simulated clinical trial. Neurology 2002; 58: 433–437.
Demyttenaere K, Desaiah D, Petit C, Croenlein J, Brecht S . Patient-assessed versus physician-assessed disease severity and outcome in patients with nonspecific pain associated with major depressive disorder. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry 2009; 11: 8–15.
Cardenas DD, Ditunno J, Graziani V, Jackson AB, Lammertse D, Potter P et al. Phase 2 trial of sustained-release fampridine in chronic spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2007; 45: 158–168.
Harvey LA, Herbert RD, Glinsky J, Moseley AM, Bowden J . Effects of 6 months of regular passive movements on ankle joint mobility in people with spinal cord injury: a randomised controlled trial. Spinal Cord 2009; 47: 62–66.
Maughan EF, Lewis JS . Outcome measures in chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 2010 (e-pub ahead of print; DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1353-6).
Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G . Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 869–879.
Wiles CM, Newcombe RG, Fuller KJ, Jones A, Price M . Use of videotape to assess mobility in a controlled randomized crossover trial of physiotherapy in chronic multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil 2003; 17: 256–263.
Chen C, Yeung K, Bih L, Wang C, Chen M, Chien J . The relationship between sitting stability and functional performance in patients with paraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84: 1276–1281.
Boswell-Ruys CL, Sturnieks DL, Harvey LA, Sherrington C, Middleton JW, Lord SR . Validity and reliability of assessment tools for measuring unsupported sitting in people with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90: 1571–1577.
Campbell J, Kendall M . Investigating the suitability of the Clinical Outcome Variables Scale (COVS) as a mobility outcome measure in spinal cord injury rehabilitation. Physiother Can 2003; 55: 135–144.
Ditunno PL, Dittunno JF . Walking Index for Spinal Cord Injury (WISCI II): scale revision. Spinal Cord 2001; 39: 654–656.
Iyer LV, Haley SM, Watkins MP, Dumas HM . Establishing minimal clinically important differences for scores on the pediatric evaluation of disability inventory for inpatient rehabilitation. Phys Ther 2003; 83: 888–898.
Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG . Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273: 408–412.
Liang MH . Longitudinal construct validity: establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med Care 2000; 38: II84–II90.
Slavin MD, Kisala PA, Jette AM, Tulsky DS . Developing a contemporary functional outcome measure for spinal cord injury research. Spinal Cord 2010; 48: 262–267.
de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM . Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006; 4: 54.
Haley SM, Fragala-Pinkham MA . Interpreting change scores of tests and measures used in physical therapy. Phys Ther 2006; 86: 735–743.
Middel B, Stewart R, Bouma J, van Sonderen E, van den Heuvel WJ . How to validate clinically important change in health-related functional status. Is the magnitude of the effect size consistently related to magnitude of change as indicated by a global question rating? J Eval Clin Pract 2001; 7: 399–410.
Tractenberg RE, Jin S, Patterson M, Schneider LS, Gamst A, Thomas RG et al. Qualifying change: a method for defining clinically meaningful outcomes of change score computation. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000; 48: 1478–1482.
de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB, van der Roer N, Knol DL, Beckerman H et al. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res 2007; 16: 131–142.
Lee BB, King MT, Simpson JM, Haran MJ, Stockler MR, Marial O et al. Validity, responsiveness, and minimal important difference for the SF-6D health utility scale in a spinal cord injured population. Value Health 2008; 11: 680–688.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the patients from the three Sydney Spinal Injury Units who participated and to Josh Simmons and Joanne Glinsky who rated the videos. This study was funded by the Rehabilitation and Disability Research Foundation. Financial support was from The Motor Accidents Authority of NSW and The Rehabilitation and Disability Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Harvey, L., Folpp, H., Denis, S. et al. Clinicians’ and patients’ impressions of change in motor performance as potential outcome measures for clinical trials. Spinal Cord 49, 30–35 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2010.105
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2010.105
