When global rating of change contradicts observed change

Examining appraisal processes underlying paradoxical responses over time

Carolyn E. Schwartz, Victoria E. Powell, Bruce D. Rapkin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims: Interpreting change scores is challenging when patients’ global rating of change (GRC) scores contradict their observed change scores. We examine appraisal processes associated with having GRC-observed change contradictions. Methods: This secondary analysis of longitudinal multiple sclerosis (MS) registry data examined predictors of GRC scores in the whole sample (n = 858). Logistic modeling then examined predictors of membership in one of two paradoxical subgroups (n = 525): (a) Worsened GRC with unchanged observed Rand-12 Mental Component scores (MCS) (Symptom-Maximizers, n = 171) versus no change GRC among stable MCS subsample; and (b) same GRC with declined observed MCS scores (Symptom-Minimizers, n = 84) versus declining GRC among declining MCS subsample. Independent variables were cognitive appraisal processes from the Quality of Life (QOL) Appraisal Profile. Results: GRC scores were more strongly associated with appraisal processes than with change in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (R2 = 11 and 2 %, respectively). Symptom-Maximizers tended to focus on MS-related experiences and emphasize big changes; over time, they decreasingly defined QOL in terms of independence, increasingly focused on their MS, and increasingly compared themselves to doctor’s predictions (Pseudo R2 = 0.20). In contrast, Symptom-Minimizers tended not to recall recent episodes; over time, they focused increasingly on goals related to living situation and emphasized long-term concerns (Pseudo R2 = 0.25). Conclusions: Appraisal explains more variance in GRC scores than do changes in PROs. People whose GRC assessment contradicts their observed change can be characterized by distinct cognitive appraisal processes reflecting response shift.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-11
Number of pages11
JournalQuality of Life Research
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Oct 8 2016

Fingerprint

Multiple Sclerosis
Quality of Life
Registries
Patient Reported Outcome Measures

Keywords

  • Appraisal
  • Clinical significance
  • Interpretation of change
  • Patient-reported outcomes
  • Response shift

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

When global rating of change contradicts observed change : Examining appraisal processes underlying paradoxical responses over time. / Schwartz, Carolyn E.; Powell, Victoria E.; Rapkin, Bruce D.

In: Quality of Life Research, 08.10.2016, p. 1-11.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4f962209db954060af6e2f82aca4ed03,
title = "When global rating of change contradicts observed change: Examining appraisal processes underlying paradoxical responses over time",
abstract = "Aims: Interpreting change scores is challenging when patients’ global rating of change (GRC) scores contradict their observed change scores. We examine appraisal processes associated with having GRC-observed change contradictions. Methods: This secondary analysis of longitudinal multiple sclerosis (MS) registry data examined predictors of GRC scores in the whole sample (n = 858). Logistic modeling then examined predictors of membership in one of two paradoxical subgroups (n = 525): (a) Worsened GRC with unchanged observed Rand-12 Mental Component scores (MCS) (Symptom-Maximizers, n = 171) versus no change GRC among stable MCS subsample; and (b) same GRC with declined observed MCS scores (Symptom-Minimizers, n = 84) versus declining GRC among declining MCS subsample. Independent variables were cognitive appraisal processes from the Quality of Life (QOL) Appraisal Profile. Results: GRC scores were more strongly associated with appraisal processes than with change in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (R2 = 11 and 2 {\%}, respectively). Symptom-Maximizers tended to focus on MS-related experiences and emphasize big changes; over time, they decreasingly defined QOL in terms of independence, increasingly focused on their MS, and increasingly compared themselves to doctor’s predictions (Pseudo R2 = 0.20). In contrast, Symptom-Minimizers tended not to recall recent episodes; over time, they focused increasingly on goals related to living situation and emphasized long-term concerns (Pseudo R2 = 0.25). Conclusions: Appraisal explains more variance in GRC scores than do changes in PROs. People whose GRC assessment contradicts their observed change can be characterized by distinct cognitive appraisal processes reflecting response shift.",
keywords = "Appraisal, Clinical significance, Interpretation of change, Patient-reported outcomes, Response shift",
author = "Schwartz, {Carolyn E.} and Powell, {Victoria E.} and Rapkin, {Bruce D.}",
year = "2016",
month = "10",
day = "8",
doi = "10.1007/s11136-016-1414-3",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--11",
journal = "Quality of Life Research",
issn = "0962-9343",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - When global rating of change contradicts observed change

T2 - Examining appraisal processes underlying paradoxical responses over time

AU - Schwartz, Carolyn E.

AU - Powell, Victoria E.

AU - Rapkin, Bruce D.

PY - 2016/10/8

Y1 - 2016/10/8

N2 - Aims: Interpreting change scores is challenging when patients’ global rating of change (GRC) scores contradict their observed change scores. We examine appraisal processes associated with having GRC-observed change contradictions. Methods: This secondary analysis of longitudinal multiple sclerosis (MS) registry data examined predictors of GRC scores in the whole sample (n = 858). Logistic modeling then examined predictors of membership in one of two paradoxical subgroups (n = 525): (a) Worsened GRC with unchanged observed Rand-12 Mental Component scores (MCS) (Symptom-Maximizers, n = 171) versus no change GRC among stable MCS subsample; and (b) same GRC with declined observed MCS scores (Symptom-Minimizers, n = 84) versus declining GRC among declining MCS subsample. Independent variables were cognitive appraisal processes from the Quality of Life (QOL) Appraisal Profile. Results: GRC scores were more strongly associated with appraisal processes than with change in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (R2 = 11 and 2 %, respectively). Symptom-Maximizers tended to focus on MS-related experiences and emphasize big changes; over time, they decreasingly defined QOL in terms of independence, increasingly focused on their MS, and increasingly compared themselves to doctor’s predictions (Pseudo R2 = 0.20). In contrast, Symptom-Minimizers tended not to recall recent episodes; over time, they focused increasingly on goals related to living situation and emphasized long-term concerns (Pseudo R2 = 0.25). Conclusions: Appraisal explains more variance in GRC scores than do changes in PROs. People whose GRC assessment contradicts their observed change can be characterized by distinct cognitive appraisal processes reflecting response shift.

AB - Aims: Interpreting change scores is challenging when patients’ global rating of change (GRC) scores contradict their observed change scores. We examine appraisal processes associated with having GRC-observed change contradictions. Methods: This secondary analysis of longitudinal multiple sclerosis (MS) registry data examined predictors of GRC scores in the whole sample (n = 858). Logistic modeling then examined predictors of membership in one of two paradoxical subgroups (n = 525): (a) Worsened GRC with unchanged observed Rand-12 Mental Component scores (MCS) (Symptom-Maximizers, n = 171) versus no change GRC among stable MCS subsample; and (b) same GRC with declined observed MCS scores (Symptom-Minimizers, n = 84) versus declining GRC among declining MCS subsample. Independent variables were cognitive appraisal processes from the Quality of Life (QOL) Appraisal Profile. Results: GRC scores were more strongly associated with appraisal processes than with change in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (R2 = 11 and 2 %, respectively). Symptom-Maximizers tended to focus on MS-related experiences and emphasize big changes; over time, they decreasingly defined QOL in terms of independence, increasingly focused on their MS, and increasingly compared themselves to doctor’s predictions (Pseudo R2 = 0.20). In contrast, Symptom-Minimizers tended not to recall recent episodes; over time, they focused increasingly on goals related to living situation and emphasized long-term concerns (Pseudo R2 = 0.25). Conclusions: Appraisal explains more variance in GRC scores than do changes in PROs. People whose GRC assessment contradicts their observed change can be characterized by distinct cognitive appraisal processes reflecting response shift.

KW - Appraisal

KW - Clinical significance

KW - Interpretation of change

KW - Patient-reported outcomes

KW - Response shift

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84990882881&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84990882881&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11136-016-1414-3

DO - 10.1007/s11136-016-1414-3

M3 - Article

SP - 1

EP - 11

JO - Quality of Life Research

JF - Quality of Life Research

SN - 0962-9343

ER -