Skip to main content

Table 4 Responsiveness: hypotheses and confirmation

From: Translation and evaluation of psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the Single Assessment and Numeric Evaluation Method (SANEM) in shoulder patients

Hypotheses

ES/SRM

Hypothesis confirmed

1. The ES in the group of patients who reported there was a difference between T0 and T3 in pain and function is expected to be ≥ 0.8.

1.24

Yes

2. The SRM in the group of patients who reported there was a difference between T0 and T3 in pain and function is expected to be ≥ 0.8.

1.39

Yes

3. The ES in the group of patients who reported there was a difference between T0 and T3 in pain or function is expected to be ≥ 0.4.

1.02

Yes

4. The SRM in the group of patients who reported there was a difference between T0 and T3 in pain or function is expected to be ≥ 0.4.

1.59

Yes

5. The ES in the group of patients who reported there was no difference between T0 and T3 in pain and function is expected to be ≤ 0.2.

0.33

No

6. The SRM in the group of patients who reported there was no difference between T0 and T3 in pain and function is expected to be ≤ 0.2.

0.30

No

7. The ES in the group of patients who reported there was a difference between T0 and T3 in pain and function is expected to be ≥ 0.2 larger than the ES in the group of patients who reported there was a difference in pain or function between T0 and T3.

 

Yes

8. The SRM in the group of patients who reported there was a difference between T0 and T3 in pain and function is expected to be ≥ 0.2 larger than the SRM in the group of patients who reported there was a difference in pain or function between T0 and T3.

 

Yes

Percentage of hypotheses confirmed

 

75%

  1. ES effect size, SRM standardized response mean