↓ Skip to main content

The new COSMIN guidelines confront traditional concepts of responsiveness

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
Title
The new COSMIN guidelines confront traditional concepts of responsiveness
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-11-152
Pubmed ID
Authors

Felix Angst

Abstract

The recently published "COSMIN" guidelines aim to rate properties of outcome instruments and state two issues with regard to responsiveness which is the instrument's ability to detect change over time. These issues are comparison of score changes with change of an external criterion using correlations and the judgement of traditional methods as inappropriate. The latter are the "transition" concept, a global rating of change, and parametric measures of responsiveness, for example, effect sizes. It can be shown that the methodology proposed by the guidelines has important weaknesses and that denunciation of traditional methods is not appropriate. Some claims of the guidelines about responsiveness do not match the demands of clinical reality and confront findings of numerous epidemiological studies.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Peru 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 92 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 16%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Master 13 13%
Student > Postgraduate 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Other 20 21%
Unknown 16 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Psychology 9 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Arts and Humanities 4 4%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 20 21%