Table 6.
Summary of hypotheses tested
| Number | Statement of hypothesis | Reasoning underlying hypothesis | Hypothesis supported by findings? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Most inter-domain correlations between PRO instruments will be moderately sized (i.e., falling within the range of 0.30–0.70) | Findings from prior research | Yes; 65 of 80 (81 %) of inter-domain correlations were within this range |
| 2 | Correlations between SF-12v2 and SIBDQ domains will be larger than between SF-12v2 and WPAI:SHP domains | The SF-12v2 and SIBDQ measure the same underlying construct (HRQL), while the WPAI:SHP measures a different construct (WRO) | Yes; the magnitude of the average inter-domain correlation between SF-12v2 and SIBDQ (0.44) was higher than between SF-12v2 and WPAI:SHP (−0.37) |
| 3 | Correlations between SIBDQ and WPAI:SHP domains will be larger than between SF-12v2 and WPAI:SHP domains | The SIBDQ and WPAI:SHP measure UC-specific health outcomes, while the SF-12v2 measures generic health outcomes | Yes; the magnitude of the average inter-domain correlation between SIBDQ and WPAI:SHP (0.47) was higher than between SF-12v2 and WPAI:SHP (0.37) |
| 4 | Changes in UC symptoms from baseline to week 8 will correlate more highly with SIBDQ and WPAI:SHP domains than with SF-12v2 domains | Because the SIBDQ and WPAI:SHP measure UC-specific health outcomes, while the SF-12v2 measures generic health outcomes, the former two instruments should be more responsive to changes in UC-specific symptoms | Yes; the magnitude of the average correlations of UC symptom scores with domains of the SIBDQ (0.41) and WPAI:SHP (0.40) was higher than between UC symptom scores and SF-12v2 domains (0.30) |
| 5 | Differences in change scores as a function of month 12 clinical recurrence status will be larger for SIBDQ and WPAI:SHP domains than for SF-12v2 domains | Because the SIBDQ and WPAI:SHP measure UC-specific health outcomes, while the SF-12v2 measures generic health outcomes, the former two instruments should be more responsive to changes in UC-specific symptoms | No; the magnitude of average effect sizes for differences in domain scores between clinical recurrence status groups was similar across all PRO instruments (0.48 for SIBDQ, 0.45 for SF-12v2, and 0.44 for the WPAI:SHP) |
| 6 | SIBDQ and WPAI:SHP domains will show larger treatment effects during the acute treatment phase than will SF-12v2 domains | Because the SIBDQ and WPAI:SHP measure UC-specific health outcomes, while the SF-12v2 measures generic health outcomes, the former two instruments should be more sensitive to treatment that decreases UC-specific symptoms | Yes; the magnitude of average effect size for changes in scores from Baseline to week 8 was larger for domains of the SIBDQ (average d = 0.62) and WPAI:SHP (0.43) than for SF-12v2 domains (0.33) |