Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen. Je kunt je links eenvoudig registreren. Met deze gegevens kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL. Heb je een vraag, neem dan contact op met helpdesk@thim.nl.

» Andere revante producten voor THIM studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Om ook buiten de locaties van THIM, thuis bijvoorbeeld, van Mijn BSL gebruik te kunnen maken, moet je jezelf eenmalig registreren. Dit kan alleen vanaf een computer op een van de locaties van THIM.

Eenmaal geregistreerd kun je thuis of waar ook ter wereld onbeperkt toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Login

Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

01-12-2009

Derivation and testing of an interval-level score for measuring locomotor disability in epidemiological studies of middle and old age

Auteurs: Sara Muller, Elaine Thomas, George Peat

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 10/2009

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

Locomotor disability is prevalent in middle and old age and although interval-level measurement instruments have been developed that relate to locomotor disability, there is currently no brief, interval-level score developed specifically to measure the severity of locomotor disability in the general population. We aimed to create such a score from five items of the SF-36 Physical Functioning subscale (PF-10): three walking- and two stair-climbing-related, and assess the scoring mechanism’s measurement properties.

Methods

Data were collected from postal surveys of adults aged 50 years and over. The walking and stair-climbing items were formed into two super-items to remove response dependency. The Rasch measurement model was used to form an interval-level score and fit to this model was assessed. The scoring mechanism was applied to three external data sets and fit to the Rasch model was assessed. Repeatability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the new interval scale were examined.

Results

Overall, the fit of the super-items to the Rasch model was good, with little evidence of misfit. Our analyses broadly support the generalisability, repeatability, construct validity, and responsiveness of this new interval-level score.

Conclusions

An interval-level score for locomotor disability was created from five items of the PF-10 completed in a general population of adults aged 50 years and over. Further work is needed to assess the generalisability of this Rasch score to other populations and to determine a clinically meaningful change score.
vorige artikel Development and validation of a composite score based on clinically meaningful events for the opioid-related symptom distress scale
volgende artikel Psychometric properties of the Patient Activation Measure among individuals presenting for elective lumbar spine surgery
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Martin, J., Meltzer, H., & Elliot, D. (1988). OPCS surveys of disability in Great Britain. The prevalence of disability among adults. London: HMSO.
2.
Chaves, P. H. M., Garrett, E. S., & Fried, L. P. (2000). Predicting the risk of mobility difficulty in older women with screen nomograms. Archives of Internal Medicine, 160(16), 2525–2533.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Melzer, D., Gardener, E., & Guralnik, J. M. (2005). Mobility disability in the middle-aged: Cross-sectional associations in the English longitudinal study of ageing. Age and Ageing, 34(6), 594–602.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Blazer, D. G., Hybels, C. F., & Fillenbaum, G. G. (2006). Metabolic syndrome predicts mobility decline in a community-based sample of older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 54(3), 502–506.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Dunlop, D. D., Hughes, S. L., & Manheim, L. M. (1997). Disability in activities of daily living: Patterns of change and a hierarchy of disability. American Journal of Public Health, 87(3), 378–383.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Ahacic, K., Parker, M. G., & Thorslund, M. (2003). Mobility limitations 1974–1991: Period changes explaining improvement in the population. Social Science and Medicine, 57(12), 2411–2422.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Bohannon, R. W., Brennan, P. J., Pescatello, L. S., Marschke, L., Hasson, S., & Murphy, M. (2004). Using self-report and speed to screen for gait limitations. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Genetics, 23(1), 1–8.CrossRef
8.
Guralnik, J. M., Ferrucci, L., Balfour, J. L., Volpato, S., & Di Iorio, A. (2001). Progressive versus catastrophic loss of the ability to walk: Implications for the prevention of mobility loss. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 49(11), 1463–1470.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Wannamethee, S. G., Ebrahim, S., Papacosta, O., & Shaper, A. G. (2005). From a postal survey of older men, healthy lifestyle factors reduced the onset of and may have increased recovery from mobility limitation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(8), 831–840.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Gill, T. M., Allore, H. G., Hardy, S. E., & Guo, Z. (2006). The dynamic nature of mobility disability in older persons. The Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 54(2), 248–254.CrossRef
11.
Mendes de Leon, C. F., Hansberry, M. R., Bienias, J. L., Morris, M. C., & Evans, D. A. (2006). Relative weight and mobility: A longitudinal study in a biracial population of older Americans. Annals of Epidemiology, 16(10), 770–776.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Peat, G., Thomas, E., Wilkie, R., & Croft, P. (2006). Multiple joint pain and lower extremity disability in middle and old age. Disability and Rehabilitation, 28(24), 1543–1549.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Syddall, H. E., Martin, H. J., Harwood, R. J., Cooper, C., & Aihie Sayer, A. (2009). The SF-36: A simple, effective measure of mobility-disability for epidemiological studies. The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, 13(1), 57–62.CrossRef
15.
Merbitz, C., Morris, J., & Grip, J. C. (1989). Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 70(4), 308–312.PubMed
16.
Wright, B. D., & Linacre, J. M. (1989). Observations are always ordinal; measurements, however, must be interval. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 70(12), 857–860.PubMed
17.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. [Reprinted by University of Chicago Press, 1980].
18.
Fischer, G. H. (1995). Derivations of the Rasch model. In G. H. Fischer & I. W. Molenaar (Eds.), Rasch models: Foundations, recent developments, and applications (pp. 15–38). New York: Springer-Verlag.
19.
Feinstein, A. R., Josephy, B. R., & Wells, C. K. (1986). Scientific and clinical problems in indexes of functional disability. Annals of Internal Medicine, 105(3), 413–420.PubMed
20.
de Vet, H. C. W., Terwee, C. B., & Bouter, L. M. (2003). Current challenges in clinimetrics. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(12), 1137–1141.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Haley, S. M., McHorney, C. A., & Ware, J. E. (1994). Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10): I. Unidimensionality and reproducibility of the Rasch item scale. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47(6), 671–684.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Stucki, G., Daltroy, L., Katz, J. N., Johannesson, M., & Liang, M. H. (1996). Interpretation of change scores in ordinal clinical scales and health status measures: the whole may not equal the sum of the parts. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49(7), 711–717.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Raczek, A. E., Ware, J. E., Bjorner, J. B., Gandek, B., Haley, S. M., Aaronson, N. K., et al. (1998). Comparison of Rasch and summated rating scales constructed from SF-36 physical functioning items in seven countries: Results from the IQOLA project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1203–1214.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Jenkinson, C., Fitzpatrick, R., Garrett, A., Peto, V., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2001). Can item response theory reduce patient burden when measuring health status in neurological disorders? Results from Rasch analysis of the SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10). Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 71(2), 220–224.CrossRef
25.
Organization, World. Health. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization.
26.
Wilkie, R., Peat, G., Thomas, E., & Croft, P. R. (2004). Measuring the consequences of osteoarthritis and joint pain in population-based studies: Can existing health measurement instruments capture levels of participation? Arthritis and Rheumatism, 51(5), 755–762.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Pollard, B., Dixon, D., Dieppe, P., & Johnston, M. (2009). Measuring the ICF components of impairment, activity limitation and participation restriction: An item analysis using classical test theory and item response theory. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 41.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Thomas, E., Wilkie, R., Peat, G., Hill, S., Dziedzic, K., & Croft, P. (2004). The North Staffordshire Osteoarthritis Project–NorStOP: Prospective, 3-year study of the epidemiology and management of clinical osteoarthritis in a general population of older adults. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 5, 2.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Wilkie, R., Peat, G., Thomas, E., Hooper, H., & Croft, P. R. (2005). The Keele assessment of participation: A new instrument to measure participation restriction in population studies. Combined qualitative and quantitative examination of its psychometric properties. Quality of Life Research, 14(8), 1889–1899.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Thomas, E., Peat, G., Harris, L., Wilkie, R., & Croft, P. R. (2004). The prevalence of pain and pain interference in a general population of older adults: Cross-sectional findings from the North Staffordshire Osteoarthritis Project (NorStOP). Pain, 110, 361–368.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Thomas, E., Mottram, S., Peat, G., Wilkie, R., & Croft, P. R. (2007). The effect of age on the onset of pain interference in a general population of older adults: Prospective findings from the North Staffordshire Osteoarthritis Project (NorStOP) sectional findings from the North Staffordshire Osteoarthritis Project (NorStOP). Pain, 129, 21–27.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Jinks, C., Jordan, K., Ong, B. N., & Croft, P. (2004). A brief screening tool for knee pain in primary care (KNEST). 2. Results from a survey in the general population aged 50 and over. Rheumatology, 43(1), 55–61.CrossRefPubMed
33.
National Assembly for Wales. (1998). Welsh health survey [computer file]. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor], September 2000. SN: 4176.
34.
van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Dunn, K. M., Spies-Dorgelo, M. N., Mallen, C. D., Blankenstein, A. H., & Stalman, W. A. B. (2008). Impact of physical symptoms on perceived health in the community. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 64(3), 265–274.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Brazier, J. E., Harper, R., Jones, N. M. B., O’Caithain, A., Thomas, K. J., Usherwood, T., et al. (1992). Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: New outcome measure for primary care. British Medical Journal, 305(6846), 160–164.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Aaronson, N. K., Muller, M., Cohen, P. D. A., Essink-Bot, M. L., Fekkes, M., Sanderman, R., et al. (1998). Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 health survey in community and chronic disease populations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1055–1068.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best test design: Rasch measurement. Chicago: Mesa Press.
38.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39.
Smith, E. V., & Smith, R. M. (2004). Introduction to Rasch measurement. Maple Grove: JAM Press.
40.
Tennant, A., & Conaghan, P. G. (2007). The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: What is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis and Rheumatism, 57(8), 1358–1362.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Marais, I., & Andrich, D. (2008). Formalizing dimension and response violations of local independence in the unidimensional Rasch model. Journal of Applied Measurement, 9(3), 200–215.PubMed
42.
Andrich, D. (1985). An elaboration of Guttman scaling with Rasch models for measurement. In N. Brandon-Tuma (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 33–80). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
43.
Andrich, D., Lyne, A., Sheridan, B., & Luo, G. (2003). RUMM2020. Perth: RUMM Laboratory.
44.
Smith, E. V. (2002). Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principle components analysis of residuals. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(2), 205–231.PubMed
45.
Tennant, A., Horton, M., & Pallant, J. F. (2008). An introduction to Rasch analysis using RUMM2020. Leeds: Psychometric Laboratory for Health Sciences, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, The University of Leeds.
46.
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1995). Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. British Medical Journal, 310(6973), 170.
47.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D. M., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Hobart, J., & Cano, S. (2009). Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: The role of new psychometric methods. Health Technology Assessment, 13(iii, ix–x), 1–177.
49.
Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12-item short-form health survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34(3), 220–233.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Launer, L. J., Harris, T., Rumpel, C., & Madans, J. (1994). Body mass index, weight change, and risk of mobility disability in middle-aged and older women. The epidemiological follow-up study of NHANES I. Journal of the American Medical Association, 271(14), 1093–1098.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Clark, D. O., Stump, T. E., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1998). Predictors of onset and recovery from mobility difficulty among adults aged 51–61 years. American Journal of Epidemiology, 148(1), 63–71.PubMed
52.
Ebrahim, S., Wannamethee, S. G., Whincup, P., Walker, M., & Shaper, A. G. (2000). Locomotor disability in a cohort of British men: The impact of lifestyle and disease. International Journal of Epidemiology, 29(3), 478–486.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Wright, B. D. (2003). Rack and stack: Time 1 vs. Time 2. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 17(1), 905–906.
54.
Andrich, D., Lyne, A., Sheridan, B., & Luo, G. (2003). Interpreting RUMM2020. Part I: Dichotomous data. Perth: RUMM Laboratory.
55.
Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Becker, J., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E. (2008). Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(1), 17–33.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Ebrahim, S., Adamson, J., Ayis, S., Beswick, A., & Gooberman-Hill, R. (2008). Locomotor disability: Meaning, causes and effects of interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 13(Suppl 3), 38–46.CrossRef
57.
Kriegsman, D. M. W., Deeg, D. J. H., van Eijk, J. T. M., Pennix, W. J. H., & Boekem, A. J. P. (1997). Do disease specific characteristics add to the explanation of mobility limitations in patients with different chronic diseases? A study in the Netherlands. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 51(6), 676–685.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Adamson, J., Hunt, K., & Ebrahim, S. (2003). Association between measures of morbidity and locomotor disability: Diagnosis alone is not enough. Social Science and Medicine, 57(8), 1355–1360.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Linacre, J. M. (1994). Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7(4), 328.
60.
Karabatsos, G. (2004). The Rasch model, additive conjoint measurement, and new models of probabilistic measurement theory. In E. V. Smith & R. M. Smith (Eds.), Introduction to Rasch measurement (pp. 630–664). Maple Grove: JAM Press.
61.
McHorney, C. A., Haley, S. M., & Ware, J. E. (1997). Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10): II. Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50(4), 451–461.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., & Patrick, D. L. (2006). Protocol of the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 2.CrossRefPubMed
63.
Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983). The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67(6), 361–370.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Bergner, M., Bobbit, R. A., Carter, W. B., & Gilson, B. S. (1981). The sickness impact profile: Development and final revision of a health status measure. Medical Care, 19(8), 787–805.CrossRefPubMed
65.
Guttman, L. (1944). A basis for scaling quantitative data. American Sociological Review, 9(2), 139–150.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Derivation and testing of an interval-level score for measuring locomotor disability in epidemiological studies of middle and old age
Auteurs
Sara Muller
Elaine Thomas
George Peat
Publicatiedatum
01-12-2009
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 10/2009
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9553-4

Andere artikelen Uitgave 10/2009

Intellectual property rights and good research practice

  • Editorial

Patient-reported outcomes instruments: bridging the gap between international copyright laws and common practice for developers and users—a case example

  • Commentary

Psychometric properties of the Patient Activation Measure among individuals presenting for elective lumbar spine surgery

Same question, different answers: a comparison of global health assessments using visual analogue scales

Development and validation of a composite score based on clinically meaningful events for the opioid-related symptom distress scale

Does urinary incontinence affect quality of life of Greek women less severely? A cross-sectional study in two Mediterranean settings