Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 28, Issue 10, pp 2633–2634 | Cite as

Relating response shift and cognitive appraisal to measurement validation

  • Richard SawatzkyEmail author
Responses to "Advancing quality‑of‑life research by deepening our understanding of response shift" by Bruce D. Rapkin & Carolyn E. Schwartz

Rapkin and Schwartz draw attention to “cognitive appraisal” as foundational to understanding response shift. Their argument is grounded in the theoretical premise that response shift arises from a process of cognitive change in how people interpret and respond to items for measuring quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes. In this invited response, I relate the notion of cognitive appraisal to theoretical perspectives of measurement validity that focus on inferences, actions, and decisions made on measurement scores [1]. From this point of view, response shift research on cognitive appraisal can be viewed as a form of measurement validity evidence, where the goal is to arrive at justifiable inferences about the meaning of variability in longitudinal change of measurement scores [2]. I conclude with a discussion of methods for examining individual differences in response shift, including a novel approach that involves the use of latent class models.

Theories of measurement...

Notes

Funding

Funding was provided by Canada Research Chair/Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Sawatzky, the author of this study, declares that he has no conflicts of interest. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by the author.

References

  1. 1.
    Zumbo, B. D., & Chan, E. K. H. (2014). Validity and validation in social, behavioral, and health sciences. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sawatzky, R., Sajobi, T. T., Brahmbhatt, R., Chan, E. K., Lix, L., & Zumbo, B. D. (2017). Longitudinal change in response processes: A response shift perspective. In B. D. Zumbo & A. M. Hubley (Eds.), Understanding and investigating response processes in validation research (pp. 251–276). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co Inc.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hubley, A. M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2017). Response processes in the context of validity: Setting the stage. In B. D. Zumbo & A. M. Hubley (Eds.), Understanding and investigating response processes in validation research (pp. 1–12). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barofsky, I. (2012). Quality its definition and measurement as applied to the medically ill. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of NursingTrinity Western UniversityLangleyCanada
  2. 2.Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome SciencesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations