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:

06-07-2017

Item-level psychometrics of the ADL instrument of the Korean National Survey on persons with physical disabilities

Auteurs: Ickpyo Hong, Mi Jung Lee, Moon Young Kim, Hae Yean Park

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 10/2017

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

The aim of this study is to investigate the psychometrics of the 12 items of an instrument assessing activities of daily living (ADL) using an item response theory model.

Methods

A total of 648 adults with physical disabilities and having difficulties in ADLs were retrieved from the 2014 Korean National Survey on People with Disabilities. The psychometric testing included factor analysis, internal consistency, precision, and differential item functioning (DIF) across categories including sex, older age, marital status, and physical impairment area.

Results

The sample had a mean age of 69.7 years old (SD = 13.7). The majority of the sample had lower extremity impairments (62.0%) and had at least 2.1 chronic conditions. The instrument demonstrated unidimensional construct and good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95). The instrument precisely estimated person measures within a wide range of theta values (−2.22 logits < θ < 0.27 logits) with a reliability of 0.9. Only the changing position item demonstrated misfit (χ2 = 36.6, df = 17, p = 0.0038), and the dressing item demonstrated DIF on the impairment type (upper extremity/others, McFadden’s Pseudo R 2 > 5.0%).

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that the dressing item would need to be modified to improve its psychometrics. Overall, the ADL instrument demonstrates good psychometrics, and thus, it may be used as a standardized instrument for measuring disability in rehabilitation contexts. However, the findings are limited to adults with physical disabilities. Future studies should replicate psychometric testing for survey respondents with other disorders and for children.
vorige artikel Development of the life impact burn recovery evaluation (LIBRE) profile: assessing burn survivors’ social participation
volgende artikel Examining gender-related differential item functioning of the Veterans Rand 12-item Health Survey
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Korean Institute for Health and Social Affairs (2014). National Survey on People with Disabilities.
2.
Kim, H.-O., & Joung, K. H. (2007). A study on the needs of health & community services among the disabled at home in rural areas. Journal of Korean Academy of Community Health Nursing, 18(3), 480–491.
3.
Osborn, R., Moulds, D., Squires, D., Doty, M. M., & Anderson, C. (2014). International survey of older adults finds shortcomings in access, coordination, and patient-centered care. Health Affairs, 33(12), 2247–2255. doi:10.​1377/​hlthaff.​2014.​0947.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Verbrugge, L. M., & Jette, A. M. (1994). The disablement process. Social Science & Medicine, 38(1), 1–14.CrossRef
5.
6.
7.
Andersen, C. K., Wittrup-Jensen, K. U., Lolk, A., Andersen, K., & Kragh-Sørensen, P. (2004). Ability to perform activities of daily living is the main factor affecting quality of life in patients with dementia. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2(1), 1–7. doi:10.​1186/​1477-7525-2-52.CrossRef
8.
Stineman, M. G., & Granger, C. V. (1997). A modular case-mix classification system for medical rehabilitation illustrated. Health Care Financing Review, 19(1), 87–103.PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Carter, G. M., Relies, D. A., Ridgeway, G. K., & Rimes, C. M. (2003). Measuring function for medicare inpatient rehabilitation payment. Health Care Financing Review, 24(3), 25–44.PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Mackenbach, J. P., Simon, J. G., Looman, C. W., & Joung, I. M. (2002). Self-assessed health and mortality: Could psychosocial factors explain the association? International Journal of Epidemiology, 31(6), 1162–1168. doi:10.​1093/​ije/​31.​6.​1162.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Buz, J., & Cortés-Rodríguez, M. (2016). Measurement of the severity of disability in community-dwelling adults and older adults: Interval-level measures for accurate comparisons in large survey data sets. British Medical Journal Open, 6(9), e011842. doi:10.​1136/​bmjopen-2016-011842.
12.
Cook, C., & Pietrobon, R. (2006). Item analysis of the NHANES ADL instrument in a sample of patients reporting frequent severe headaches. Physiotherapy Research International, 11(2), 84–92. doi:10.​1002/​pri.​324.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Cook, C. E., Richardson, J. K., Pietrobon, R., Braga, L., Silva, H. M., & Turner, D. (2006). Validation of the NHANES ADL scale in a sample of patients with report of cervical pain: Factor analysis, item response theory analysis, and line item validity. Disability and Rehabilitation, 28(15), 929–935. doi:10.​1080/​0963828050040426​3.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Cieza, A., Oberhauser, C., Bickenbach, J., Jones, R. N., Üstün, T. B., Kostanjsek, N., et al. (2015). The English are healthier than the Americans: Really? International Journal of Epidemiology, 44(1), 229–238. doi:10.​1093/​ije/​dyu182.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Curtin, L., Mohadjer, L., Dohrmann, S., Montaquila, J., Kruszan-Moran, D., Mirel, L., et al. (2012). The national health and nutrition examination survey: Sample design, 1999–2006. Vital and health statistics. Series 2, Data Evaluation and Methods Research, 155, 1–39.
16.
Won, C. W., Rho, Y. G., Kim, S. Y., Cho, B. R., & Lee, Y. S. (2002). The validity and reliability of Korean Activities of Daily Living (K-ADL) scale. Journal of the Korean Geriatrics Society, 6(2), 98–106.
17.
Won, C. W., Rho, Y. G., SunWoo, D., & Lee, Y. S. (2002). The validity and reliability of Korean Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (K-IADL) scale. Journal of the Korean Geriatrics Society, 6(4), 273–280.
18.
Shin, S.-M., & Chun, J.-S. (2011). A study on donning and doffing independence of the person with disabilities on upper-limbs. Research Journal of the Costume Culture, 19(1), 42–53.
19.
Hambleton, R. K. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory (Measurement methods for the social sciences series). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
20.
Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best test design. Chicago: Mesa Press.
21.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
22.
De Ayala, R. J. (2013). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York: Guilford.
23.
Linacre, J. M. (1998). Detecting multidimensionality: which residual data-type works best? Journal of Outcome Measurement, 2(3), 266–283.PubMed
24.
Velozo, C. A., Kielhofner, G., & Lai, J. S. (1999). The use of Rasch analysis to produce scale-free measurement of functional ability. American Journal Occupational Therapy, 53(1), 83–90.CrossRef
25.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2015). Mplus. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
26.
Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S22–S31. doi:10.​1097/​01.​mlr.​0000250483.​85507.​04.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Tabchnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyin & Bacon.
28.
Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), II28.PubMedPubMedCentral
29.
De Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. Methodology in the social sciences. New York: Guilford Press.
30.
Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2003). Further investigation of the performance of S − X 2: An item fit index for use with dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(4), 289–298. doi:10.​1177/​0146621603027004​004.CrossRef
31.
Dodd, B. G., Koch, W. R., & De Ayala, R. J. (1989). Operational characteristics of adaptive testing procedures using the graded response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13(2), 129–143.CrossRef
32.
Adams, R. J. (1987). Adaptive testing, information, and the partial credit model. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
33.
Biddle, R. E. (1993). How to set cutoff scores for knowledge tests used in promotion, training, certification, and licensing. Public Personnel Management, 22, 63–79.CrossRef
34.
McHorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995). Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research, 4(4), 293–307.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (2012). Differential item functioning. Princeton: Routledge.
36.
37.
Choi, S. W., Gibbons, L. E., & Crane, P. K. (2011). lordif: An R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and monte carlo simulations. Journal of Statistical Software, 39(8), 1–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Cai, L., Thissen, D., & du Toit, S. H. C. (2011). IRTPRO for Windows (21st ed.). Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International.
39.
SAS Institute Inc. (2015). SAS for Windows (94th ed.). Cary: SAS Institute.
40.
Granger, C. V., Hamilton, B. B., Keith, R. A., Zielezny, M., & Sherwin, F. S. (1986). Advances in functional assessment for medical rehabilitation. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 1(3), 59–74.CrossRef
41.
Velozo, C. A., Byers, K. L., Wang, Y. C., & Joseph, B. R. (2007). Translating measures across the continuum of care: using Rasch analysis to create a crosswalk between the Functional Independence Measure and the Minimum Data Set. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 44(3), 467–478.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Granger, C. V., Hamilton, B. B., Linacre, J. M., Heinemann, A. W., & Wright, B. D. (1993). Performance profiles of the functional independence measure. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 72(2), 84–89.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2013). Item response theory. London: Psychology Press.
44.
Austin, P. C., Escobar, M., & Kopec, J. A. (2000). The use of the Tobit model for analyzing measures of health status. Quality of Life Research, 9(8), 901–910.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Spector, W. D., & Fleishman, J. A. (1998). Combining activities of daily living with instrumental activities of daily living to measure functional disability. Journals of Gerontology, 53(1), S46–S57.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Cabrero-Garcia, J., & Lopez-Pina, J. A. (2008). Aggregated measures of functional disability in a nationally representative sample of disabled people: analysis of dimensionality according to gender and severity of disability. Quality of Life Research, 17(3), 425–436. doi:10.​1007/​s11136-008-9313-x.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Linacre, J. (2010). Two perspectives on the application of Rasch models. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 46(2), 309–310.PubMed
48.
Merbitz, C., Morris, J., & Grip, J. C. (1989). Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 70(4), 308–312.
Metagegevens
Titel
Item-level psychometrics of the ADL instrument of the Korean National Survey on persons with physical disabilities
Auteurs
Ickpyo Hong
Mi Jung Lee
Moon Young Kim
Hae Yean Park
Publicatiedatum
06-07-2017
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 10/2017
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1637-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 10/2017

Lifetime traumatic events, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with life in older adults

Associations between illness duration and health-related quality of life in specified mental and physical chronic health conditions: results from a population-based survey

Predictors of health-related quality of life in maltreated children and adolescents

Distinguishing appraisal and personality influences on quality of life in chronic illness: introducing the quality-of-life Appraisal Profile version 2

Relationships between environmental factors and participation in adults with traumatic brain injury, stroke, and spinal cord injury: a cross-sectional multi-center study

Comparison of quality of life among community-dwelling older adults with the frailty phenotype