(I originally posted this on Co-Cure back in 2007 but thought I'd post it somewhere else now. The same points still apply
I thought people might find it interesting to look at the SF-36 physical functioning sub-scale as it is one of the two primary outcome measures in the PACE trial and in other trials.
A lot of people use the whole SF-36 for their research but they've decided to use this part (one of 8 measures) as one of the two outcome measures (the other being the 11-item Chalder Fatigue Scale) to see whether people have improved or not.
[My opinion: This may be because people have tended to get bigger increases on this after GET or CBT than some other measures E.g. in Fulcher and White (1997), Ellen Goudsmit pointed out: http://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0702C&L=CO-CURE&P=R2886&I=-3 d (the effect size) calculated from the data for the MOS-SF physical functioning subscale was .69, but d for the MOS-SF as a whole was .499. One is higher than that for fatigue, the other is lower].
----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
It is interesting because one of the aims of CBT (O'Dowd, 2006) is "Increased confidence in exercise and physical activity"
One part of their programme (and probably other CBT and GET programmes) is:
"Introduction to graded exercise as a means of regaining fitness and confidence in movement."
If one gets somebody to go for one or two walks a day or aim for this, their confidence in their ability to do it may increase. Across the course of a day, they may be doing no more or even less than a person pacing themselves (but not doing one or two "big" walks), and mentally they might be more brain-fogged but if they say start going for a walk, they are probably much less likely to tick "Yes, Limited A Lot" or "Yes, Limited A Little" (and more likely to tick "No, Not Limited At All") than somebody who paces themselves and listens to their body for the questions about walking ability (for example).
Just because they answer the questionnaire in a certain way doesn't mean that they're actually healthier. It very interesting how, although there was some change in subjective measures in the Belgian clinics, on the exercise testing before and after (and follow-up) there was basically no change (tableaux 66 & 67) (This is mentioned (but not necessarily in the same way) in the text:
In the PACE trial, regarding outcome measures, they say:
[Aside: The other primary outcome measure is:
[Aside: Inclusion criteria for the trial use the SF-36 PF subscale:
1. Both participant and clinician agree that randomisation is acceptable.
2. The participant has given written informed consent.
3. The participant meets operationalised Oxford research diagnostic criteria for CFS [2].
4. The participant’s Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire score is 6 or more [27].
5. The participant’s SF-36 physical function sub-scale score [28] is 65 or less.
6. The participant is aged at least 18 years old].
I thought people might find it interesting to look at the SF-36 physical functioning sub-scale as it is one of the two primary outcome measures in the PACE trial and in other trials.
A lot of people use the whole SF-36 for their research but they've decided to use this part (one of 8 measures) as one of the two outcome measures (the other being the 11-item Chalder Fatigue Scale) to see whether people have improved or not.
[My opinion: This may be because people have tended to get bigger increases on this after GET or CBT than some other measures E.g. in Fulcher and White (1997), Ellen Goudsmit pointed out: http://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0702C&L=CO-CURE&P=R2886&I=-3 d (the effect size) calculated from the data for the MOS-SF physical functioning subscale was .69, but d for the MOS-SF as a whole was .499. One is higher than that for fatigue, the other is lower].
----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
It is interesting because one of the aims of CBT (O'Dowd, 2006) is "Increased confidence in exercise and physical activity"
One part of their programme (and probably other CBT and GET programmes) is:
"Introduction to graded exercise as a means of regaining fitness and confidence in movement."
If one gets somebody to go for one or two walks a day or aim for this, their confidence in their ability to do it may increase. Across the course of a day, they may be doing no more or even less than a person pacing themselves (but not doing one or two "big" walks), and mentally they might be more brain-fogged but if they say start going for a walk, they are probably much less likely to tick "Yes, Limited A Lot" or "Yes, Limited A Little" (and more likely to tick "No, Not Limited At All") than somebody who paces themselves and listens to their body for the questions about walking ability (for example).
Just because they answer the questionnaire in a certain way doesn't mean that they're actually healthier. It very interesting how, although there was some change in subjective measures in the Belgian clinics, on the exercise testing before and after (and follow-up) there was basically no change (tableaux 66 & 67) (This is mentioned (but not necessarily in the same way) in the text:
In the PACE trial, regarding outcome measures, they say:
[Aside: The other primary outcome measure is:
- because they're using the 0,0,1,1 item scores, I think there's going to be a ceiling effect and less people will be seen to be getting worse (even if they are)]
[Aside: Inclusion criteria for the trial use the SF-36 PF subscale:
1. Both participant and clinician agree that randomisation is acceptable.
2. The participant has given written informed consent.
3. The participant meets operationalised Oxford research diagnostic criteria for CFS [2].
4. The participant’s Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire score is 6 or more [27].
5. The participant’s SF-36 physical function sub-scale score [28] is 65 or less.
6. The participant is aged at least 18 years old].