Comparing three preprocessing strategies for longitudinal data: An example in functional outcomes research

Paul R. Yarnold*, Joe Feinglass, Walter J. McCarthy, Gary J. Martin

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

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 languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)254-277
Number of pages24
JournalEvaluation and the Health Professions
Volume22
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1999

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparing three preprocessing strategies for longitudinal data: An example in functional outcomes research'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this