TY - JOUR
T1 - Measurement realibility of cardiovascular reactivity change scores
T2 - A comparison of intermittent and continuous methods of assessment
AU - Gerin, William
AU - Pieper, Carl
AU - Pickering, Thomas G.
N1 - Funding Information:
These studies were conducted at the Hypertension Center, Cornell University Medical Center-The New York Hospital. Preparation of this article was supported in part by National Institute of Health Grant HL 30605, awarded to Dr. Thomas G. Pickering, Principal Investigator. *Cornell University Medical College/New York Hospital. iAuthor to whom correspondence should be addressed at: Hypertension Center/Starr Pavilion ST405, Cornell University Medical College/New York Hospital, 525 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10021, U.S.A.
PY - 1993/7
Y1 - 1993/7
N2 - Cardiovascular reactivity testing is a widely used measure of risk for hypertension and coronary heart disease. Evidence for the reliability of the measures, however, is weak. If the measures (usually change scores) are unreliable, the usefulness of testing is limited, since relationships with other measures, such as disease outcomes, may be obscured. This study examines the reliability of blood pressure change, using both a traditional method of assessment (Colin ABPM) which provides intermittent readings, and a non-invasive method that samples the complete distribution of pressures (Ohmeda Finapres). While the reliability for the Colin was found to be good for absolute level of individual measurements, it was extremely poor for change scores. The Finapres, however, yielded high reliabilities for change scores as well as absolute levels, due to the large number of readings taken during baseline and stressor conditions. Implications for reactivity testing methodology are discussed.
AB - Cardiovascular reactivity testing is a widely used measure of risk for hypertension and coronary heart disease. Evidence for the reliability of the measures, however, is weak. If the measures (usually change scores) are unreliable, the usefulness of testing is limited, since relationships with other measures, such as disease outcomes, may be obscured. This study examines the reliability of blood pressure change, using both a traditional method of assessment (Colin ABPM) which provides intermittent readings, and a non-invasive method that samples the complete distribution of pressures (Ohmeda Finapres). While the reliability for the Colin was found to be good for absolute level of individual measurements, it was extremely poor for change scores. The Finapres, however, yielded high reliabilities for change scores as well as absolute levels, due to the large number of readings taken during baseline and stressor conditions. Implications for reactivity testing methodology are discussed.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027217119&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027217119&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/0022-3999(93)90005-Z
DO - 10.1016/0022-3999(93)90005-Z
M3 - Article
C2 - 8350291
AN - SCOPUS:0027217119
SN - 0022-3999
VL - 37
SP - 493
EP - 501
JO - Journal of Psychosomatic Research
JF - Journal of Psychosomatic Research
IS - 5
ER -