You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 159 No. 2, January 25, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Commentary
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (23)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Neonatology and Infant Care
 •Physical Examination
 •Statistics and Research Methods
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Multi-item "Instruments" vs Virginia Apgar's Principles of Clinimetrics

Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:125-128.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

INTRODUCTION

VIRGINIA Apgar can be regarded as the founding parent of modern clinimetrics.1 The score she constructed2 more than 40 years ago was a pioneer attempt to convert an intangible clinical phenomenon into a formally specified measurement.

The object of Apgar's attention—the clinical condition of a newborn baby—was not something tangible, like the length of a leg, the color of a fingernail, or the noise of a heart murmur. A baby's condition is an intangible clinical concept or "construct," somewhat like anxiety or congestive heart failure, that is not directly observed as an individual entity, but that can be perceived, interpreted, and rated from a set of pertinent observed phenomena.

Before Apgar's work, a baby's condition was usually expressed with such ratings as excellent, good, fair, or poor, or with phrases such as mild, moderate, or severe respiratory depression.3 The ratings were assigned by each observer implicitly, without identifying the constituent . . . [Full Text of this Article]

SELECTION OF VARIABLES

WEIGHTING OF VARIABLES

HETEROGENEITY OF VARIABLES

EASE OF USAGE

FACE VALIDITY

SOURCE OF OBSERVATIONS

COMMENT



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Atrial Fibrillation Through the Patient's Eyes
Havranek
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2009;2:213-214.
FULL TEXT  

Utility of the Surgical Apgar Score: Validation in 4119 Patients
Regenbogen et al.
Arch Surg 2009;144:30-36.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Dying Well After Discontinuing the Life-Support Treatment of Dialysis
Cohen et al.
Arch Intern Med 2000;160:2513-2518.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinimetrics and Psychometrics Work Hand in Hand
Zyzanski et al.
Arch Intern Med 1999;159:1816-1817.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1999 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.