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 (31)

    • Quasi-experimental study on the effectiveness of psychoanalysis, long-term and short-term psychotherapy on psychiatric symptoms, work ability and functional capacity during a 5-year follow-up

      2011, Journal of Affective Disorders
      Citation Excerpt :

      Our finding of no differences between any of the treatment groups in comparison with the PA group in realized work ability is, however, in contradiction with previous findings of increased work absence days in the PA group (Sandell et al., 2000). This variance may be explained by the baseline differences in the use sick-leaves and by the multiplicity of factors involved in sickness absence measurement and procedures (Ziebland et al., 1993). The treatment effect reached during the treatments, both in the short-term therapy groups and the long-term therapy group persisted after the end of therapy.

    • Disease adaptation may have decreased quality-of-life responsiveness in patients with chronic progressive neurological disorders

      2004, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Self-reported patient outcome measures such as quality of life (QOL) and health status (HS) are based on hypothesized psychological constructs that are measured indirectly through single questions or multi-item questionnaires [1,2]. There is considerable debate about QOL and HS definition [3] and utility [4–6], their ethical [7] and philosophical basis [8,9], and what they purport to measure [10–12]. The term quality of life is variously used to indicate health status, physical functioning, perceived health status, subjective health, health perceptions, symptoms, need satisfaction, individual cognition, functional disability, psychiatric disturbance, and well-being [3].

    • Can we achieve accountability for long-term outcomes?

      1996, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text