The assessment of methods of measurement
- 1 April 1990
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Statistics in Medicine
- Vol. 9 (4) , 351-362
- https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780090402
Abstract
Criteria are given for the choice of scale prior to estimation of repeatability. Recommendations of Bland and Altman should then be used for expressing repeatability and agreement of methods of measurement on the same scale. Repeatability of measurements on different scales should be compared using the appropriate ratio of variances, or intraclass correlation coefficient. A reference range for diagnosis requires a high ratio of between‐subject variation to total variation. The index of separation between diseased and healthy subjects should be used whenever possible. Changes within patients should be compared with reference change ranges, and not against the diagnostic range.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Measuring measuring errorsStatistics in Medicine, 1989
- The repeatability and validity of respiratory resistance measured by the forced oscillation techniqueRespiratory Medicine, 1989
- NEW DEVICE TO IMPROVE THE ACCURACY OF BEDSIDE BLOOD GLUCOSE TESTSThe Lancet, 1988
- Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing.BMJ, 1986
- STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENTThe Lancet, 1986
- Measurement in Medicine: The Analysis of Method Comparison StudiesJournal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician), 1983
- Histamine dose-response curves in asthma: reproducibility and sensitivity of different indices to assess response.Thorax, 1983
- Measurement of responsiveness to inhaled histamine using FEV1: comparison of PC20 and threshold.Thorax, 1983
- Comparison of normal and asthmatic circadian rhythms in peak expiratory flow rate.Thorax, 1980
- Distinguishing physiologic variation from analytic variationJournal of Chronic Diseases, 1970