Distilling the essence of appraisal

a mixed methods study of people with multiple sclerosis

Bruce D. Rapkin, Carolyn E. Schwartz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to identify the essential parts of the Quality of Life (QOL) Appraisal Profile that capture the most important differences in the ways that people with multiple sclerosis respond to patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. This process will enable the eventual development of a more practical, less resource-intensive version of the QOL Appraisal Profile to facilitate its use in clinical research and practice. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of longitudinal PRO data (n = 859) of participants in the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis registry. Following the Rapkin and Schwartz (Health Qual Life Outcomes 2(1):14, 2004) model, we computed a “standard QOL model,” and then multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and discriminant function (DF) analysis to identify patterns of appraisal measures associated with group differences in response to each QOL outcome. Results: The “standard QOL model” explains a moderate amount of variance (i.e., 15–17 %) in physical functioning and disease-specific disability, and very little variance in mental health functioning. The MANOVAs identified the appraisal variables that mattered by PRO, and the DF analysis included 10–16 of the 83 potential appraisal variables in two DFs per outcome that distinguished groups with better, average, and worse expected scores, as well as groups with better-than-expected, as-expected, and worse-than-expected scores. The dominant appraisal parameters were more similar between the generic and disease-specific measure of physical functioning and disability, respectively, than between the mental health measure and the former two measures. Conclusions: The practical implications of this work all revolve around a fundamental recommendation: Whenever one measures QOL, one should measure appraisal.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalQuality of Life Research
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Sep 5 2015

Fingerprint

Multiple Sclerosis
Quality of Life
Discriminant Analysis
Mental Health
Research
Registries
Analysis of Variance
Multivariate Analysis
Health
Patient Reported Outcome Measures

Keywords

  • Appraisal
  • Multiple sclerosis
  • Patient-reported outcomes
  • Response shift

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Distilling the essence of appraisal : a mixed methods study of people with multiple sclerosis. / Rapkin, Bruce D.; Schwartz, Carolyn E.

In: Quality of Life Research, 05.09.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6d1c722a8af149f4a35d4a7810d005f9,
title = "Distilling the essence of appraisal: a mixed methods study of people with multiple sclerosis",
abstract = "Background: This study aimed to identify the essential parts of the Quality of Life (QOL) Appraisal Profile that capture the most important differences in the ways that people with multiple sclerosis respond to patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. This process will enable the eventual development of a more practical, less resource-intensive version of the QOL Appraisal Profile to facilitate its use in clinical research and practice. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of longitudinal PRO data (n = 859) of participants in the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis registry. Following the Rapkin and Schwartz (Health Qual Life Outcomes 2(1):14, 2004) model, we computed a “standard QOL model,” and then multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and discriminant function (DF) analysis to identify patterns of appraisal measures associated with group differences in response to each QOL outcome. Results: The “standard QOL model” explains a moderate amount of variance (i.e., 15–17 {\%}) in physical functioning and disease-specific disability, and very little variance in mental health functioning. The MANOVAs identified the appraisal variables that mattered by PRO, and the DF analysis included 10–16 of the 83 potential appraisal variables in two DFs per outcome that distinguished groups with better, average, and worse expected scores, as well as groups with better-than-expected, as-expected, and worse-than-expected scores. The dominant appraisal parameters were more similar between the generic and disease-specific measure of physical functioning and disability, respectively, than between the mental health measure and the former two measures. Conclusions: The practical implications of this work all revolve around a fundamental recommendation: Whenever one measures QOL, one should measure appraisal.",
keywords = "Appraisal, Multiple sclerosis, Patient-reported outcomes, Response shift",
author = "Rapkin, {Bruce D.} and Schwartz, {Carolyn E.}",
year = "2015",
month = "9",
day = "5",
doi = "10.1007/s11136-015-1119-z",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Quality of Life Research",
issn = "0962-9343",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Distilling the essence of appraisal

T2 - a mixed methods study of people with multiple sclerosis

AU - Rapkin, Bruce D.

AU - Schwartz, Carolyn E.

PY - 2015/9/5

Y1 - 2015/9/5

N2 - Background: This study aimed to identify the essential parts of the Quality of Life (QOL) Appraisal Profile that capture the most important differences in the ways that people with multiple sclerosis respond to patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. This process will enable the eventual development of a more practical, less resource-intensive version of the QOL Appraisal Profile to facilitate its use in clinical research and practice. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of longitudinal PRO data (n = 859) of participants in the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis registry. Following the Rapkin and Schwartz (Health Qual Life Outcomes 2(1):14, 2004) model, we computed a “standard QOL model,” and then multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and discriminant function (DF) analysis to identify patterns of appraisal measures associated with group differences in response to each QOL outcome. Results: The “standard QOL model” explains a moderate amount of variance (i.e., 15–17 %) in physical functioning and disease-specific disability, and very little variance in mental health functioning. The MANOVAs identified the appraisal variables that mattered by PRO, and the DF analysis included 10–16 of the 83 potential appraisal variables in two DFs per outcome that distinguished groups with better, average, and worse expected scores, as well as groups with better-than-expected, as-expected, and worse-than-expected scores. The dominant appraisal parameters were more similar between the generic and disease-specific measure of physical functioning and disability, respectively, than between the mental health measure and the former two measures. Conclusions: The practical implications of this work all revolve around a fundamental recommendation: Whenever one measures QOL, one should measure appraisal.

AB - Background: This study aimed to identify the essential parts of the Quality of Life (QOL) Appraisal Profile that capture the most important differences in the ways that people with multiple sclerosis respond to patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. This process will enable the eventual development of a more practical, less resource-intensive version of the QOL Appraisal Profile to facilitate its use in clinical research and practice. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of longitudinal PRO data (n = 859) of participants in the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis registry. Following the Rapkin and Schwartz (Health Qual Life Outcomes 2(1):14, 2004) model, we computed a “standard QOL model,” and then multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and discriminant function (DF) analysis to identify patterns of appraisal measures associated with group differences in response to each QOL outcome. Results: The “standard QOL model” explains a moderate amount of variance (i.e., 15–17 %) in physical functioning and disease-specific disability, and very little variance in mental health functioning. The MANOVAs identified the appraisal variables that mattered by PRO, and the DF analysis included 10–16 of the 83 potential appraisal variables in two DFs per outcome that distinguished groups with better, average, and worse expected scores, as well as groups with better-than-expected, as-expected, and worse-than-expected scores. The dominant appraisal parameters were more similar between the generic and disease-specific measure of physical functioning and disability, respectively, than between the mental health measure and the former two measures. Conclusions: The practical implications of this work all revolve around a fundamental recommendation: Whenever one measures QOL, one should measure appraisal.

KW - Appraisal

KW - Multiple sclerosis

KW - Patient-reported outcomes

KW - Response shift

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84940862141&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84940862141&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11136-015-1119-z

DO - 10.1007/s11136-015-1119-z

M3 - Article

JO - Quality of Life Research

JF - Quality of Life Research

SN - 0962-9343

ER -