References

Bassett, S.S., Magaziner, J., and Hebel, J.R. Reliability of Proxy Response on Mental Health Indices for Aged, Community-Dwelling Women. Psychology of Aging 5(1): 127-132, 1990.


Epstein, A.M., Hall, J.A., Tognetti, J., Son, L.H., and Conant, Jr., L. Using Proxies to Evaluate Quality of Life. Can They Provide Valid Information about Patients' Health Status and Satisfaction with Medical Care? Medical Care 27(3 Suppl.):S91-S98, 1989.


Forsyth, B.H., and Lessler, J.T. Cognitive Laboratory Methods: A Taxonomy. In Biemer, P.P., Groves, R.M., Lyberg, L.E., Mathiowetz, N.A., and Sudman, S., eds., Measurement Errors in Surveys. New York: Wiley, 1991.


Grootendorst, P.V., Feeny, D.H., and Furlong, W. Does it Matter Whom and How You Ask? Inter-and Intra-Rater Agreement in the Ontario Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 50(2): 127-135, 1997.


Hays, R.D., Vickrey, B.G., Hermann, B.P., Perrine, K., et al. Agreement Between Self-Reports and Proxy Reports of Quality of Life in Epilepsy Patients . Quality of Life Research 4(2): 159-168, 1995.


Institute of Medicine (IOM). Disability Evaluation Study Design: First Interim Report. Institute of Medicine. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1997.

Institute of Medicine (IOM). Measuring Functional Capacity and Work Requirements: Summary of a Workshop. Institute of Medicine. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1999.


Long, K., Sudha, S., and Mutran, E.J. Elder-Proxy Agreement Concerning the Functional Status and Medical History of the Older Person: The Impact of Caregiver Burden and Depressive Symptomology. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 46(9): 1103-1111, 1998.


Magaziner, J., Zimmerman, S.I., Gruber-Baldini, A.L., Hebel, J.R., and Fox, K.M. Proxy Reporting in Five Areas of Functional Status. Comparison with Self-Reports and Observations of Performance. American Journal of Epidemiology 146(5):418-428, 1997.


Sneeuw, K.C., Aaronson, N.K., de Haan, R.J., and Limburg, M. Assessing Quality of Life After Stroke. The Value and Limitations of Proxy Ratings. Stroke 28(8): 1541-1549, 1997.

Sneeuw, K.C., Aaronson, N.K., Sprangers, M.A., Detmar, S.B., Wever, L.D., and Schornagel, J.H. Comparison of Patient and Proxy EORTC QLQ-C30 Ratings in Assessing the Quality of Life of Cancer Patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 51 (7):617-631, 1998.

Sudman, S., Bradburn, N.M., and Schwartz, N. Thinking about Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996.


Westat, Inc. Disability Evaluation Study-Instruments and Procedures: Task 4, Report 1. Submitted to Social Security Administration, Washington, D.C., June 1999a. (Unpublished.)



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 23
Review of Disability Evaluation Study Design: Third Interim Report References Bassett, S.S., Magaziner, J., and Hebel, J.R. Reliability of Proxy Response on Mental Health Indices for Aged, Community-Dwelling Women. Psychology of Aging 5(1): 127-132, 1990. Epstein, A.M., Hall, J.A., Tognetti, J., Son, L.H., and Conant, Jr., L. Using Proxies to Evaluate Quality of Life. Can They Provide Valid Information about Patients' Health Status and Satisfaction with Medical Care? Medical Care 27(3 Suppl.):S91-S98, 1989. Forsyth, B.H., and Lessler, J.T. Cognitive Laboratory Methods: A Taxonomy. In Biemer, P.P., Groves, R.M., Lyberg, L.E., Mathiowetz, N.A., and Sudman, S., eds., Measurement Errors in Surveys. New York: Wiley, 1991. Grootendorst, P.V., Feeny, D.H., and Furlong, W. Does it Matter Whom and How You Ask? Inter-and Intra-Rater Agreement in the Ontario Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 50(2): 127-135, 1997. Hays, R.D., Vickrey, B.G., Hermann, B.P., Perrine, K., et al. Agreement Between Self-Reports and Proxy Reports of Quality of Life in Epilepsy Patients . Quality of Life Research 4(2): 159-168, 1995. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Disability Evaluation Study Design: First Interim Report. Institute of Medicine. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1997. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Measuring Functional Capacity and Work Requirements: Summary of a Workshop. Institute of Medicine. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1999. Long, K., Sudha, S., and Mutran, E.J. Elder-Proxy Agreement Concerning the Functional Status and Medical History of the Older Person: The Impact of Caregiver Burden and Depressive Symptomology. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 46(9): 1103-1111, 1998. Magaziner, J., Zimmerman, S.I., Gruber-Baldini, A.L., Hebel, J.R., and Fox, K.M. Proxy Reporting in Five Areas of Functional Status. Comparison with Self-Reports and Observations of Performance. American Journal of Epidemiology 146(5):418-428, 1997. Sneeuw, K.C., Aaronson, N.K., de Haan, R.J., and Limburg, M. Assessing Quality of Life After Stroke. The Value and Limitations of Proxy Ratings. Stroke 28(8): 1541-1549, 1997. Sneeuw, K.C., Aaronson, N.K., Sprangers, M.A., Detmar, S.B., Wever, L.D., and Schornagel, J.H. Comparison of Patient and Proxy EORTC QLQ-C30 Ratings in Assessing the Quality of Life of Cancer Patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 51 (7):617-631, 1998. Sudman, S., Bradburn, N.M., and Schwartz, N. Thinking about Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996. Westat, Inc. Disability Evaluation Study-Instruments and Procedures: Task 4, Report 1. Submitted to Social Security Administration, Washington, D.C., June 1999a. (Unpublished.)

OCR for page 23
Review of Disability Evaluation Study Design: Third Interim Report Westat, Inc. Disability Evaluation Study-Final Sample Design Report: Task 4, Report 2. (Includes Pilot Study Design.) Submitted to Social Security Administration, Washington, D.C., June 1999b. (Unpublished.) Westat, Inc. Disability Evaluation Study-Plans to Meet Response Rate Goals: Task 4, Report 3. Submitted to Social Security Administration, Washington, D.C., June 1999c. (Unpublished.)