Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations.

By J. Husted, Richard J. Cook, V. Farewell, D. Gladman. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2000

1,491 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Systematic evaluation of rating scales for impairment and disability in Parkinson's disease (2002, background): “In contrast to the assessment of individual differences in change, there is no clear consensus as to how this should be assessed for a rating method.(15,17)”
Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. (2003, methodology): “, Standard error of the None Increases with sample size x1 x0 (di d̄) n(n 1) 2000 [74] mean change”
Responsiveness of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale in Patients with Low Back Pain (2005, methodology): “, minimum clinically important difference).(13,15) Several studies assessing the responsiveness of pain intensity in patients with LBP using instruments such as the visual analog scale exist.”
On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: Guidelines for instrument evaluation (2003, methodology): “external responsiveness [53] or distribution-based vs.”