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 language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 254-277 |
Number of pages | 24 |
Journal | Evaluation and the Health Professions |
Volume | 22 |
Issue number | 2 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Jun 1999 |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Health Policy