This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Yarnold, P. R. Articles by Martin, G. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Yarnold, P. R. Articles by Martin, G. J. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Comparing Three Preprocessing Strategies for Longitudinal Data

An Example in Functional Outcomes Research

Northwestern University Medical School and the University of Illinois at Chicago

Joe Feinglass

Northwestern University Medical School and the Institute for Health Services Research and Policy Studies

Walter J. McCarthy

Gary J. Martin

Northwestern University Medical School

Longitudinal monitoring of individual patient data is becoming routine in physician office practice. This study compares three different methods for evaluating clinical outcomes for individual patients: raw change score analysis versus normative and ipsative statistical analyses. Two discrete samples of intermittent claudication patients making vascular surgery office visits—drawn from interventional management versus stable, routinely followed control groups—were tested four times using both generic and disease-specific functional status measures. Results indicated that the ipsative method was most consistent with several different types of a priori hypotheses that are often evaluated in analysis of repeated measures data.

Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 22, No. 2, 254-277 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/01632789922034301


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?