↓ Skip to main content

Global ratings of change do not accurately reflect functional change over time in clinical practice.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Global ratings of change do not accurately reflect functional change over time in clinical practice.
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, January 2015
DOI 10.2519/jospt.2015.5247
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Study Design Retrospective longitudinal cohort study. Objectives To determine whether the global rating of change (GROC) is valid for assessing functional change over time in the clinical setting, and if validity decreases as length of recall increases. Background The validity of GROC instruments for representing change over time has been questioned. Our previous study showed that GROC did not adequately represent functional change over time in patients with knee disorders. This was a validation study in patients with hip or ankle/foot disorders. Methods We obtained complete data from the Focus on Therapeutic Outcomes clinical database on episodes of care for 7062 patients with hip or ankle/foot disorders. Functional status (FS) was assessed at the intake and discharge physical therapy visits via computerized adaptive testing. Each patient's GROC was assessed at the discharge visit. We assessed the extent to which GROC was associated with intake, discharge, and change in FS using correlation and linear regression analyses, stratified by recall period and anatomical location. Results Correlations of GROC with hip and ankle FS change scores were modest for recall less than 30 days and deteriorated further as recall period lengthened. Prediction of GROC from discharge and change FS scores by linear regression modeling demonstrated decline of standardized beta coefficients and R2 values as recall period lengthened. Regression analyses indicated GROC was biased toward discharge FS with little or no influence of intake FS. Conclusion These results confirm that GROC does not adequately or consistently correlate with functional change across varying lengths of time, and is therefore not recommended as a substitute for change scores on valid functional measures for use in routine clinical practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, Epub 8 Jan 2015. doi:10.2519/jospt.2015.5247.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 108 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 15%
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Researcher 10 9%
Other 9 8%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 32 29%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 41 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 February 2019.
All research outputs
#11,410,365
of 34,410,315 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
#1,738
of 2,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,244
of 409,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
#29
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,750 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.7. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 409,397 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.