Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Spies-Dorgelo, Marinda N; Terwee, Caroline B; Stalman, Wim AB; van der Windt, Daniëlle AWM (2006)
Publisher: BioMed Central
Journal: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: R858-859.7, Computer applications to medicine. Medical informatics, Research, RA



To determine the clinimetric properties of two questionnaires assessing symptoms (Symptom Severity Scale) and physical functioning (hand and finger function subscale of the AIMS2) in a Dutch primary care population.


The first 84 participants in a 1-year follow-up study on the diagnosis and prognosis of hand and wrist problems completed the Symptom Severity Scale and the hand and finger function subscale of the Dutch-AIMS2 twice within 1 to 2 weeks. The data were used to assess test-retest reliability (ICC) and smallest detectable change (SDC, based on the standard error of measurement (SEM)). To assess responsiveness, changes in scores between baseline and the 3 month follow-up were related to an external criterion to estimate the minimal important change (MIC). We calculated the group size needed to detect the MIC beyond measurement error.


The ICC for the Symptom Severity Scale was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.54–0.78). The SDC was 1.00 at individual level and 0.11 at group level, both on a 5-point scale. The MIC was 0.23, exceeding the SDC at group level. The group size required to detect a MIC beyond measurement error was 19 for the Symptom Severity Scale. The ICC for the hand and finger function subscale of the Dutch-AIMS2 was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.47–0.74). The SDC was 3.80 at individual level and 0.42 at group level, both on an 11-point scale. The MIC was 0.31, which was less than the SDC at group level. The group size required to detect a MIC beyond measurement error was 150.


In our heterogeneous primary care population the Symptom Severity Scale was found to be a suitable instrument to assess the severity of symptoms, whereas the hand and finger function subscale of the Dutch-AIMS2 was less suitable for the measurement of physical functioning in patients with hand and wrist problems.

  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Levine DW, Simmons BP, Koris MJ, Daltroy LH, Hohl GG, Fossel AH, Katz JN: A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993, 75:1585-1592.
    • 2. Meenan RF, Mason JH, Anderson JJ, Guccione AA, Kazis LE: AIMS2. The content and properties of a revised and expanded Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales Health Status Questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum 1992, 35:1-10.
    • 3. Riemsma RP, Taal E, Rasker JJ, Houtman PM, Van Paassen HC, Wiegman O: Evaluation of a Dutch version of the AIMS2 for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol 1996, 35:755-760.
    • 4. Meenan RF, Gertman PM, Mason JH: Measuring health status in arthritis. The arthritis impact measurement scales. Arthritis Rheum 1980, 23:146-152.
    • 5. Evers AW, Taal E, Kraaimaat FW, Jacobs JW, Abdel-Nasser A, Rasker JJ, Bijlsma JW: A comparison of two recently developed health status instruments for patients with arthritis: Dutch-AIMS2 and IRGL. Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales. Impact of Rheumatic diseases on General health and Lifestyle. Br J Rheumatol 1998, 37:157-164.
    • 6. Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.
    • 7. De Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM: When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59:1033-1039.
    • 8. McGraw KO, Wong SP: Forming Inferences About Some Intraclass Correlation Coefficients. Psychol Methods 1996, 1:30-46.
    • 9. Nunally JC, Bernstein IH: Psychometric theory New York: McGraw-Hill Inc; 1994.
    • 10. Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 1:307-310.
    • 11. De Boer MR, De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Moll AC, Volker-Dieben HJ, Van Rens GH: Changes to the subscales of two vision-related quality of life questionnaires are proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58:1260-1268.
    • 12. De Vet HC, Bouter LM, Bezemer PD, Beurskens AJ: Reproducibility and responsiveness of evaluative outcome measures. Theoretical considerations illustrated by an empirical example. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001, 17(4):479-487.
    • 13. Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PM: On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res 2003, 12:349-362.
    • 14. De Bruin AF, Diederiks JP, De Witte LP, Stevens FC, Philipsen H: Assessing the responsiveness of a functional status measure: the Sickness Impact Profile versus the SIP68. J Clin Epidemiol 1997, 50:529-540.
    • 15. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, De Boer MR, Van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, De Vet HCW: Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2006 in press.
    • 16. Van der Roer N, Ostelo RW, Bekkering GE, Van Tulder MW, De Vet HC: Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Spine 2006, 31:578-582.
    • 17. Deyo RA, Centor RM: Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 1986, 39:897-906.
    • 18. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ: The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982, 143:29-36.
    • 19. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR: Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 1995, 4:293-307.
    • 20. Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G: Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol 1997, 50:869-879.
    • 21. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH: Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989, 10:407-415.
    • 22. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW: Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003, 41:582-592.
    • 23. Wyrwich KW, Nienaber NA, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD: Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 1999, 37:469-478.
    • 24. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD: Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 1999, 52:861-873.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article