Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Cochran's Q Test

Cochran's Q Test

Cochran's Q Test is a nonparametric statistical test used to determine if there are potential differences in the outcomes of three or more related groups on a binary (yes/no) or dichotomous outcome. It is essentially an extension of the McNemar Test, which is limited to two related samples - Cochran's Q test can handle three or more related samples, making it more versatile in scenarios where subjects are measured under multiple conditions. The test statistic follows a Chi-Square distribution,...

Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test

Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test

When one or more data points appear far from the rest of the data, there is a need to determine whether they are outliers and whether they should be eliminated from the data set to ensure an accurate representation of the measured value. In many cases, outliers arise from gross errors (or human errors) and do not accurately reflect the underlying phenomenon. In some cases, however, these apparent outliers reflect true phenomenological differences. In these cases, we can use statistical methods...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

A predictive model for immunotherapy in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer based on peripheral blood.

Journal of thoracic disease·2026

Same author

Grading and Management of Puffy Eyelids.

Aesthetic plastic surgery·2026

Same author

Surgical Management of Unilateral Labia Minora Hypertrophy: A Retrospective Clinical Study of Individualized Reduction Techniques.

Aesthetic plastic surgery·2026

Same author

Pretarsal Fibro-adipose Fascial Layer in Congenital Single and Double Eyelids: A Cadaveric, Histologic, and Ultrasonographic Study.

Aesthetic plastic surgery·2026

Same author

Ensartinib in Resected <i>ALK</i>-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

The New England journal of medicine·2026

Same author

A multicenter longitudinal study on development and validation of the quality of life scale QLICD-DM (V2.0) for diabetes mellitus based on classical test theory and generalizability theory.

Health and quality of life outcomes·2026

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 6, 2026

Development of Compendium for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Development of Compendium for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Published on: April 12, 2024

Exploring multiple minimal clinically important differences for the esophageal cancer scale QLICP-ES (V2.0) based on

Jianfeng Tan¹, Ting Wu², Fengbo Guo¹

¹School of Humanities and Management, Research Center for Quality of Life and Applied Psychology, Guangdong Medical University, Dongguan, 523808, China.

Scientific Reports

|June 4, 2026

Summary

This study establishes multiple minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values for the QLICP-ES(V2.0) esophageal cancer scale using anchor-based and distribution-based methods. These findings aid in interpreting quality of life changes for cancer patients.

More Related Videos

Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning

Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning

Published on: August 29, 2025

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 6, 2026

Development of Compendium for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Development of Compendium for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Published on: April 12, 2024

Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning

Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning

Published on: August 29, 2025

Area of Science:

Oncology
Health Outcomes Research
Psychometrics

Background:

The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is crucial for interpreting quality of life (QOL) changes in clinical practice.
Establishing MCID for cancer-specific QOL instruments, like the QLICP-ES(V2.0) for esophageal cancer, is essential for meaningful patient outcome assessment.

Purpose of the Study:

To determine multiple MCID values for the QLICP-ES(V2.0) scale in esophageal cancer patients.
To compare MCID values derived from both anchor-based and distribution-based methodologies.

Main Methods:

Anchor-based methods utilized the EORTC QLQ-C30 Q29 item with two standards (A and B) for defining improvement.
Distribution-based methods included effect size (ES), standard error of measurement (SEM), and reliable change index (RCI).
A total of 232 esophageal cancer patients completed the QLICP-ES(V2.0) assessment.

Main Results:

Anchor-based MCID values varied by criterion: Criterion A yielded values from 3.1 to 15.1 across domains and overall score; Criterion B yielded values from 4.2 to 19.3.
Distribution-based methods resulted in MCID values ranging from 1.1 to 13.3.
Specific MCID values were reported for physical, psychological, social, common symptoms/side effects domains, general and specific modules, and overall score.

Conclusions:

Multiple MCID values for the QLICP-ES(V2.0) were established using various methods, offering flexibility for different clinical contexts.
The study recommends using anchor-based thresholds and 1.96SEM for establishing MCID in esophageal cancer patients.
The presented MCID values facilitate more precise interpretation of QOL changes in esophageal cancer survivorship care.