Theoretical framework and methodological development of common subjective health outcome measures in osteoarthritis: a critical review

Subjective measures involving clinician ratings or patient self-assessments have become recognised as an important tool for the assessment of health outcome. The value of a health outcome measure is usually assessed by a psychometric evaluation of its reliability, validity and responsiveness. However, psychometric testing involves an accumulation of evidence and has recognised limitations. It has been suggested that an evaluation of how well a measure has been developed would be a useful additional criteria in assessing the value of a measure. This paper explored the theoretical background and methodological development of subjective health status measures commonly used in osteoarthritis research. Fourteen subjective health outcome measures commonly used in osteoarthritis research were examined. Each measure was explored on the basis of their i) theoretical framework (was there a definition of what was being assessed and was it part of a theoretical model?) and ii) methodological development (what was the scaling strategy, how were the items generated and reduced, what was the response format and what was the scoring method?). Only the AIMS, SF-36 and WHOQOL defined what they were assessing (i.e. the construct of interest) and no measure assessed was part of a theoretical model. None of the clinician report measures appeared to have implemented a scaling procedure or described the rationale for the items selected or scoring system. Of the patient self-report measures, the AIMS, MPQ, OXFORD, SF-36, WHOQOL and WOMAC appeared to follow a standard psychometric scaling method. The DRP and EuroQol used alternative scaling methods. The review highlighted the general lack of theoretical framework for both clinician report and patient self-report measures. This review also drew attention to the wide variation in the methodological development of commonly used measures in OA. While, in general the patient self-report measures had good methodological development, the clinician report measures appeared less well developed. It would be of value if new measures defined the construct of interest and, that the construct, be part of theoretical model. By ensuring measures are both theoretically and empirically valid then improvements in subjective health outcome measures should be possible

All-sky search for gravitational-wave bursts in the second joint LIGO-Virgo run

We present results from a search for gravitational-wave bursts in the data collected by the LIGO and Virgo detectors between July 7, 2009 and October 20, 2010: data are analyzed when at least two of the three LIGO-Virgo detectors are in coincident operation, with a total observation time of 207 days. The analysis searches for transients of duration < 1 s over the frequency band 64-5000 Hz, without other assumptions on the signal waveform, polarization, direction or occurrence time. All identified events are consistent with the expected accidental background. We set frequentist upper limits on the rate of gravitational-wave bursts by combining this search with the previous LIGO-Virgo search on the data collected between November 2005 and October 2007. The upper limit on the rate of strong gravitational-wave bursts at the Earth is 1.3 events per year at 90% confidence. We also present upper limits on source rate density per year and Mpc^3 for sample populations of standard-candle sources. As in the previous joint run, typical sensitivities of the search in terms of the root-sum-squared strain amplitude for these waveforms lie in the range 5 10^-22 Hz^-1/2 to 1 10^-20 Hz^-1/2. The combination of the two joint runs entails the most sensitive all-sky search for generic gravitational-wave bursts and synthesizes the results achieved by the initial generation of interferometric detectors.Comment: 15 pages, 7 figures: data for plots and archived public version at https://dcc.ligo.org/cgi-bin/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=70814&version=19, see also the public announcement at http://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-S6BurstAllSky

Impairment measures in rheumatic disorders for rehabilitation medicine and allied health care: a systematic review

The objective of this study is to provide a critical overview of available instruments to assess impairments in patients with rheumatic disorders, and to recommend reliable and valid instruments for use in allied health care and rehabilitation medicine. A computer-aided literature search (1982-2004) in several databases was performed to identify studies focusing on the clinimetric properties of instruments designed to assess impairments in function in patients with rheumatic disorders. Data on intra-rater reliability, inter-rater reliability and construct validity were extracted in a standardized way. Explicit criteria were applied for reliability and validity. Results: The search identified a total of 49 instruments to assess impairments in functions in patients with rheumatic disorders; 19 met the criteria for reliability, 22 met the criteria for validity, and 11 out of the 49 appeared to meet the criteria for both reliability and validity. In summary, evidence of both reliability and validity was only found for 11 out of 49 instruments for the assessment of impairments in patients with rheumatic disorders. Only a limited number of the identified instruments for the assessment of impairments is both reliable and valid. Allied health care professionals should be cautious in the selection of measurement instruments to assess their patient