The analysis and interpretation of method comparison studies in rehabilitation research

Kenneth Ottenbacher, G. A. Stull

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Rehabilitation researchers are frequently interested in comparing the results of two tests that measure the same function. There are practical as well as financial advantages to having more than one method of assessing a particular component of function. Investigations examining the results of two tests are referred to as method comparison studies and commonly analyzed using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r). Several researchers have argued that the Pearson r is a measure of linear association (co-variation) between variables and does not provide accurate estimates of direct agreement. We compared several commonly used quantitative methods to establish agreement and have demonstrated that the Pearson r is not appropriate for use in studies where the purpose is to determine whether two instruments are interchangeable. An alternative to the Pearson r for analyzing data from method comparison studies is presented. The new procedure, referred to as the limits of agreement method, is easy to compute and emphasizes the clinical comparability of two instruments (or raters) instead of focusing solely on the statistical relationship.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)266-271
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume72
Issue number5
StatePublished - 1993
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Research Personnel
Rehabilitation Research
Rehabilitation

Keywords

  • Assessment
  • Evaluation
  • Measurement
  • Outcomes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Rehabilitation
  • Health Professions(all)
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Cite this

@article{e8cc04efaa8543bf8b919bce04e5263a,
title = "The analysis and interpretation of method comparison studies in rehabilitation research",
abstract = "Rehabilitation researchers are frequently interested in comparing the results of two tests that measure the same function. There are practical as well as financial advantages to having more than one method of assessing a particular component of function. Investigations examining the results of two tests are referred to as method comparison studies and commonly analyzed using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r). Several researchers have argued that the Pearson r is a measure of linear association (co-variation) between variables and does not provide accurate estimates of direct agreement. We compared several commonly used quantitative methods to establish agreement and have demonstrated that the Pearson r is not appropriate for use in studies where the purpose is to determine whether two instruments are interchangeable. An alternative to the Pearson r for analyzing data from method comparison studies is presented. The new procedure, referred to as the limits of agreement method, is easy to compute and emphasizes the clinical comparability of two instruments (or raters) instead of focusing solely on the statistical relationship.",
keywords = "Assessment, Evaluation, Measurement, Outcomes",
author = "Kenneth Ottenbacher and Stull, {G. A.}",
year = "1993",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "72",
pages = "266--271",
journal = "American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation",
issn = "0894-9115",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The analysis and interpretation of method comparison studies in rehabilitation research

AU - Ottenbacher, Kenneth

AU - Stull, G. A.

PY - 1993

Y1 - 1993

N2 - Rehabilitation researchers are frequently interested in comparing the results of two tests that measure the same function. There are practical as well as financial advantages to having more than one method of assessing a particular component of function. Investigations examining the results of two tests are referred to as method comparison studies and commonly analyzed using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r). Several researchers have argued that the Pearson r is a measure of linear association (co-variation) between variables and does not provide accurate estimates of direct agreement. We compared several commonly used quantitative methods to establish agreement and have demonstrated that the Pearson r is not appropriate for use in studies where the purpose is to determine whether two instruments are interchangeable. An alternative to the Pearson r for analyzing data from method comparison studies is presented. The new procedure, referred to as the limits of agreement method, is easy to compute and emphasizes the clinical comparability of two instruments (or raters) instead of focusing solely on the statistical relationship.

AB - Rehabilitation researchers are frequently interested in comparing the results of two tests that measure the same function. There are practical as well as financial advantages to having more than one method of assessing a particular component of function. Investigations examining the results of two tests are referred to as method comparison studies and commonly analyzed using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r). Several researchers have argued that the Pearson r is a measure of linear association (co-variation) between variables and does not provide accurate estimates of direct agreement. We compared several commonly used quantitative methods to establish agreement and have demonstrated that the Pearson r is not appropriate for use in studies where the purpose is to determine whether two instruments are interchangeable. An alternative to the Pearson r for analyzing data from method comparison studies is presented. The new procedure, referred to as the limits of agreement method, is easy to compute and emphasizes the clinical comparability of two instruments (or raters) instead of focusing solely on the statistical relationship.

KW - Assessment

KW - Evaluation

KW - Measurement

KW - Outcomes

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027380457&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027380457&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 8398016

AN - SCOPUS:0027380457

VL - 72

SP - 266

EP - 271

JO - American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

JF - American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

SN - 0894-9115

IS - 5

ER -