Search

Purpose: The objective of this systematic review was to describe the prevalence and magnitude of response shift effects, for different response shift methods, populations, study designs, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROM)s. Methods: A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, PSYCINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, Social Science Citation Index, and Dissertations & Theses Global to identify longitudinal quantitative studies that examined response shift using PROMs, published before 2021. The magnitude of each response shift effect (effect sizes, R-squared or percentage of respondents with response shift) was ascertained based on reported statistical information or as stated in the manuscript. Prevalence and magnitudes of response shift effects were summarized at two levels of analysis (study and effect levels), for recalibration and reprioritization/reconceptualization separately, and for different response shift methods, and population, study design, and PROM characteristics. Analyses were conducted twice: (a) including all studies and samples, and (b) including only unrelated studies and independent samples. Results: Of the 150 included studies, 130 (86.7%) detected response shift effects. Of the 4868 effects investigated, 793 (16.3%) revealed response shift. Effect sizes could be determined for 105 (70.0%) of the studies for a total of 1130 effects, of which 537 (47.5%) resulted in detection of response shift. Whereas effect sizes varied widely, most median recalibration effect sizes (Cohen's d) were between 0.20 and 0.30 and median reprioritization/reconceptualization effect sizes rarely exceeded 0.15, across the characteristics. Similar results were obtained from unrelated studies. Conclusion: The results draw attention to the need to focus on understanding variability in response shift results: Who experience response shifts, to what extent, and under which circumstances? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Our aim is to advance response shift research by explicating the implications of published syntheses by the Response Shift – in Sync Working Group in an integrative way and suggesting ways for improving the quality of future response shift studies. Methods: Members of the Working Group further discussed the syntheses of the literature on definitions, theoretical underpinnings, operationalizations, and response shift methods. They outlined areas in need of further explication and refinement, and delineated additional implications for future research. Results: First, the proposed response shift definition was further specified and its implications for the interpretation of results explicated in relation to former, published definitions. Second, the proposed theoretical model was further explained in relation to previous theoretical models and its implications for formulating research objectives highlighted. Third, ways to explore alternative explanations per response shift method and their implications for response shift detection and explanation were delineated. The implications of the diversity of the response shift methods for response shift research were presented. Fourth, the implications of the need to enhance the quality and reporting of the response shift studies for future research were sketched. Conclusion: With our work, we intend to contribute to a common language regarding response shift definitions, theory, and methods. By elucidating some of the major implications of earlier work, we hope to advance response shift research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The extant response shift definitions and theoretical response shift models, while helpful, also introduce predicaments and theoretical debates continue. To address these predicaments and stimulate empirical research, we propose a more specific formal definition of response shift and a revised theoretical model. Methods: This work is an international collaborative effort and involved a critical assessment of the literature. Results: Three main predicaments were identified. First, the formal definitions of response shift need further specification and clarification. Second, previous models were focused on explaining change in the construct intended to be measured rather than explaining the construct at multiple time points and neglected the importance of using at least two time points to investigate response shift. Third, extant models do not explicitly distinguish the measure from the construct. Here we define response shift as an effect occurring whenever observed change (e.g., change in patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) scores) is not fully explained by target change (i.e., change in the construct intended to be measured). The revised model distinguishes the measure (e.g., PROM) from the underlying target construct (e.g., quality of life) at two time points. The major plausible paths are delineated, and the underlying assumptions of this model are explicated. Conclusion: It is our hope that this refined definition and model are useful in the further development of response shift theory. The model with its explicit list of assumptions and hypothesized relationships lends itself for critical, empirical examination. Future studies are needed to empirically test the assumptions and hypothesized relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the context of international interest in reforming mental health payment systems, national policy in England has sought to move towards an episodic funding approach. Patients are categorised into care clusters, and providers will be paid for episodes of care for patients within each cluster. For the payment system to work, clusters need to be appropriately homogenous in terms of financial resource use. We examine variation in costs and activity within clusters and across health care providers. We find that the large variation between providers with respect to costs within clusters mean that a cluster-based episodic payment system would have substantially different financial impacts across providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Multidimensional item response theory and computerized adaptive testing (CAT) are increasingly used in mental health, quality of life (QoL), and patient-reported outcome measurement. Although multidimensional assessment techniques hold promises, they are more challenging in their application than unidimensional ones. The authors comment on minimal standards when developing multidimensional CATs.Methods: Prompted by pioneering papers published in QLR, the authors reflect on existing guidance and discussions from different psychometric communities, including guidelines developed for unidimensional CATs in the PROMIS project.Results: The commentary focuses on two key topics: (1) the design, evaluation, and calibration of multidimensional item banks and (2) how to study the efficiency and precision of a multidimensional item bank. The authors suggest that the development of a carefully designed and calibrated item bank encompasses a construction phase and a psychometric phase. With respect to efficiency and precision, item banks should be large enough to provide adequate precision over the full range of the latent constructs. Therefore CAT performance should be studied as a function of the latent constructs and with reference to relevant benchmarks. Solutions are also suggested for simulation studies using real data, which often result in too optimistic evaluations of an item bank's efficiency and precision.Discussion: Multidimensional CAT applications are promising but complex statistical assessment tools which necessitate detailed theoretical frameworks and methodological scrutiny when testing their appropriateness for practical applications. The authors advise researchers to evaluate item banks with a broad set of methods, describe their choices in detail, and substantiate their approach for validation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Goldberg's General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) items are frequently used to assess psychological distress but no study to date has investigated the GHQ-30's potential for adaptive administration. In computerized adaptive testing (CAT) items are matched optimally to the targeted distress level of respondents instead of relying on fixed-length versions of instruments. We therefore calibrate GHQ-30 items and report a simulation study exploring the potential of this instrument for adaptive administration in a longitudinal setting.Methods: GHQ-30 responses of 3445 participants with 2 completed assessments (baseline, 7-year follow-up) in the UK Health and Lifestyle Survey were calibrated using item response theory. Our simulation study evaluated the efficiency of CAT administration of the items, cross-sectionally and longitudinally, with different estimators, item selection methods, and measurement precision criteria.Results: To yield accurate distress measurements (marginal reliability at least 0.90) nearly all GHQ-30 items need to be administered to most survey respondents in general population samples. When lower accuracy is permissible (marginal reliability of 0.80), adaptive administration saves approximately 2/3 of the items. For longitudinal applications, change scores based on the complete set of GHQ-30 items correlate highly with change scores from adaptive administrations.Conclusions: The rationale for CAT-GHQ-30 is only supported when the required marginal reliability is lower than 0.9, which is most likely to be the case in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies assessing mean changes in populations. Precise measurement of psychological distress at the individual level can be achieved, but requires the deployment of all 30 items. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02890-6 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systems providing feedback on treatment progress have been implemented in outpatient psychotherapy. They are recognized as a helpful tool to identify possible treatment failures. This report presents the ideas underlying the planning of feedback interventions and the implementation of such programs into practice settings. Strategies to identify patients at risk for treatment failure (rationally- and empirically-derived decision rules) are presented. Additionally, evidence for the usefulness of feedback systems is discussed. The report ends with the description of an ongoing feedback intervention study in private practices in Germany (aimed at gathering information on 400 therapists with 2,000 patients). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]