English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The aim of this study was to examine the accuracy of conventionally used method-optimal cutoff of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve- to determine the minimum clinically important difference (MCID), which is the estimator of responsiveness for scales, by a simulation study. The baseline person parameters were firstly generated and, by using these values, two gold standard groups were constructed as “improved” and “non-improved” after the treatment. Five point-likert response patterns were obtained for 20 items in each group, representing pre- and post-treatment responses of individuals. The mean change score between post treatment and baseline scores for the improved group was considered as real MCID (MCID R ), after baseline and post-treatment total scores were calculated from response patterns. The cut-off for change score specified by ROC analysis, which best discriminates between improved group and not improved group, MCID ROC , was compared to MCID R . The scenarios of simulation were consisted of sample size and distribution of total scores for improved group. The data were generated for each of 40 scenarios with 1000 MCMC repeats. It was observed that the MCID R  and MCID ROC  were not so affected by sample size. However, MCID ROC  overestimated the MCID R  values in all scenarios. Briefly, the cut-off points obtained by ROC analysis found to be greater than the real MCID values. Therefore, alternative methods are required to calculate MCID.

proceedings of the international conference on applied statistics

Is conventionally calculated anchor-based minimum clinically important difference value catches the real clinical increment? Determining the situations that make the answer “no” by a simulation study