Tacit models of disability underlying health status instruments

https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(93)90319-YGet rights and content

Abstract

In recent years much attention has been paid to the development of measures of subjective health status yet, although statistical criteria of reliability and validity have been quite rigourously tested, there has been little consideration of the different theories of disability which underlie the design. The sociology of disability may illuminate such tacit theories. It is suggested that the development of health status questionnaires has not been one of simple rational accumulation in response to methodological advances. Through an examination of the content of health assessment questionnaires, four distinct models of disability are indentified. These are shown to influence not only the focus of the content and phrasing of the questions but also, crucially, the way that they perform and how responsive they are to change. The models (the functional, subjective distress, comparative and dependence) are illustrated and discussed in terms related to research design.

References (43)

  • I. McDowell et al.

    Measuring Health: A guide to Rating scales and Questionnaires

    (1987)
  • R.D. Hays et al.

    Responsiveness to change: and aspect of validity, not a separate dimension

    Qual. Life Res.

    (1992)
  • R. Fitzpatrick et al.

    Importance of sensitivity to change as a criterion for selecting health status measures

    Qual. Hlth care

    (1992)
  • Fitzpatrick R., Ziebland S., Jenkinson C., Mowat A. and Mowat A. A comparison to the sensitivity to change of several...
  • M. Liang et al.

    Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research

    Arthr. Rheum.

    (1985)
  • R. Fitzpatrick et al.

    The social dimension of health status measures in rheumatoid arthritis

    Int. Disab. Stud.

    (1991)
  • P. Berger et al.

    The Social Construction of Reality

    (1966)
  • T. Bice

    Comments on health indicators: methodological perspectives

    Int. J. Hlth Serv.

    (1976)
  • D. Locker

    Disability and Disadvantage

    (1983)
  • J.E. Ware et al.

    Choosing measures of health status for individuals in general populations

    Am. J. publ. Hlth

    (1981)
  • D.A. Karnofsky et al.

    The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer

  • Cited by (0)

    View full text