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.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||24|
|Journal||Evaluation and the Health Professions|
|State||Published - Jun 1999|
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Health Policy