Table 17.3.b: A taxonomy of health status and quality-of-life measures adapted from Patrick and Erickson (Patrick 1993).
Measure |
Strengths |
Weaknesses |
|
Types of Scores Produced |
|
|
|
Single indicator number. |
Global evaluation; Useful for population. |
May be difficult to interpret. |
|
Single index number. |
Represents net impact; Useful for cost-effectiveness. |
Sometimes not possible to disaggregate contribution of domains to the overall score. |
|
Profile of interrelated scores. |
Single instrument; Contribution of domains to overall score possible. |
Length may be a problem; May not have overall score. |
|
Battery of independentscores.
|
Wide range of relevant outcomes possible. |
Cannot relate different outcomes to common measurement scale; May need to adjust for multiple comparisons; May need to identify major outcome. |
|
Range of Populations and Concepts |
|
|
|
Generic: applied across diseases, conditions, populations, and concepts.
|
Broadly applicable; Summarizes range of concepts; Detection of unanticipated effects possible. |
May not be responsive to change; May not have focus of patient interest; Length may be a problem; Effects may be difficult to interpret. |
|
Specific: applied to individuals, diseases, conditions, populations, or concepts/domains. |
More acceptable to respondents; May be more responsive to change. |
Cannot compare across conditions or populations; Cannot detect unanticipated effects. |
|
Weighting System |
|
|
|
Utility: preference weights from patients, providers, or community. |
Interval scale; Patient or consumer view incorporated. |
May have difficulty obtaining weights; May not differ from equal weighting, which is easier to obtain. |
|
Equal weighting: items weighted equally or from frequency or responses. |
More familiar techniques; Appears easier to use. |
May be influenced by prevalence; Cannot incorporate tradeoffs. |
|
|
|
|
|