@article{ProdingerStammPeterssonetal.2016, author = {Prodinger, Birgit and Stamm, T. and Petersson, D. and Stucki, G. and Tennant, A.}, title = {Toward a standardized reporting of outcomes in hand osteoarthritis: Developing a common metric of outcome measures commonly used to assess functioning.}, series = {Arthritis Care \& Research}, volume = {68}, journal = {Arthritis Care \& Research}, number = {8}, pages = {1115 -- 1127}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Objective Functioning is an important outcome in hand osteoarthritis (OA). The heterogeneity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available challenges the direct comparability of information collected by these instruments. This study aimed to examine whether it is possible to achieve metric equivalence of PROMs commonly used to measure functioning in people with hand OA. Methods A secondary analysis of data from 253 persons who participated in the Vienna Hand Osteoarthritis Cohort Study was conducted applying the Rasch measurement model. Participants completed the Health Assessment Questionnaire, the Australian/Canadian Index for Hand Osteoarthritis, the Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis (FIHOA), and the Cochin Scale. The assumptions of stochastic ordering, local independence, unidimensionality, and invariance were tested for each scale independently before the scales were co-calibrated onto a common metric. Results Except for the FIHOA, all measures indicated issues of local dependency in the initial analyses. After accommodating those with testlets, all scales satisfied the assumptions of the Rasch model (χ2 > 0.05). Marginal misfit in 2 items was found in the FIHOA, but this did not disturb person estimates. As the 4 scales form a common metric that satisfies the assumptions of the Rasch model, the scores can be equated. Conclusion The scores of the 4 hand function measures can be transformed to a common 0-100 metric, such that scores can be interchanged. A user-friendly transformation table enables clinicians and researchers to have access to the common metric by simply adding up the total score for each instrument and identifying the corresponding transformed score on the common metric.}, language = {en} } @article{ProdingerO'ConnorStuckietal.2017, author = {Prodinger, Birgit and O'Connor, R.J. and Stucki, G. and Tennant, A.}, title = {Establishing score equivalence of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM™) motor scale and the Barthel Index, utilising the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and Rasch Measurement Theory}, series = {Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine}, volume = {49}, journal = {Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine}, number = {5}, pages = {416 -- 422}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Introduction: Two widely used outcome measures to assess functioning in neurological rehabilitation are the Functional Independence Measure (FIM™) and the Barthel Index. The current study aims to establish the equivalence of the total score of the FIM™ motor scale and the Barthel Index through the application of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, and Rasch measurement theory. Methods: Secondary analysis of a large sample of patients with stroke, spinal cord injury, and multiple sclerosis, undergoing rehabilitation was conducted. All patients were assessed at the same time on both the FIM™ and the Barthel Index. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Linking Rules were used to establish conceptual coherency between the 2 scales, and the Rasch measurement model to establish an exchange of the total scores. Results: Using the FIM™ motor scale, items from both scales linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health d4 Mobility or d5 Self-care chapters. Their co-calibration satisfied the assumptions of the Rasch model for each of 3 diagnostic groups. A ceiling effect was observed for the Barthel Index when contrasted against the FIM™ motor scale. Conclusion: Having a Rasch interval metric to transform scores between the FIM™ motor scale and Barthel Index is valuable for monitoring functioning, meta-analysis, quality audits and hospital benchmarking.}, language = {en} } @article{BallertHopfeKusetal.2019, author = {Ballert, C.S. and Hopfe, M. and Kus, M. and Mader, L. and Prodinger, Birgit}, title = {Using the refined ICF Linking Rules to compare the content of existing instruments and assessments: a systematic review and exemplary analysis of instruments measuring participation.}, series = {Disability and Rehabilitation}, volume = {41}, journal = {Disability and Rehabilitation}, number = {5}, pages = {584 -- 600}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Background: Existing instruments measuring participation may vary with respect to various aspects. This study aimed to examine the comparability of existing instruments measuring participation based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) by considering aspects of content, the perspective adopted and the categorization of response options. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify instruments that have been commonly used to measure participation. Concepts of identified instruments were then linked to the ICF following the refined ICF Linking Rules. Aspects of content, perspective adopted and categorization of response options were documented. Results: Out of 315 instruments identified in the full-text screening, 41 instruments were included. Concepts of six instruments were linked entirely to the ICF component Activities and Participation; of 10 instruments still 80\% of their concepts. A descriptive perspective was adopted in most items across instruments (75\%), mostly in combination with an intensity rating. An appraisal perspective was found in 18\% and questions from a need or dependency perspective were least frequent (7\%). Conclusion: Accounting for aspects of content, perspective and categorization of responses in the linking of instruments to the ICF provides detailed information for the comparison of instruments and guidance on narrowing down the choices of suitable instruments from a content point of view. Implications for Rehabilitation For clinicians and researchers who need to identify a specific instrument for a given purpose, the findings of this review can serve as a screening tool for instruments measuring participation in terms of the following: • Their content covered based on the ICF. • The perspective adopted in the instrument (e.g., descriptive, need/dependency or appraisal). • The categorization of their response options (e.g., intensity or frequency).}, language = {en} } @article{CastrejonCarmonaAgrinieretal.2015, author = {Castrejon, I. and Carmona, L. and Agrinier, N. and Andres, M. and Briot, K. and Caron, M. and Christensen, R. and Consolaro, A. and Curbelo, R. and Ferrer, M. and Foltz, V. and Gonzalez, C. and Guillemin, F. and Machado, P. and Prodinger, Birgit and Ravellil, A. and Scholte-Voshaar, M. and Uhlig, T. and van Tuyl, L. and Zink, A. and Gossec, L.}, title = {The EULAR Outcome Measures Library: development and an example from a systematic review for systemic lupus erythematous instruments}, series = {Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology}, volume = {33}, journal = {Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology}, number = {6}, pages = {910 -- 916}, year = {2015}, abstract = {Objective: Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are relevant in rheumatology. Variable accessibility and validity of commonly used PROs are obstacles to homogeneity in evidence synthesis. The objective of this project was to provide a comprehensive library of "validated PROs". Methods: A launch meeting with rheumatologists, PROs methodological experts, and patients, was held to define the library's aims and scope, and basic requirements. To feed the library we performed systematic reviews on selected diseases and domains. Relevant information on PROs was collected using standardised data collection forms based on the COSMIN checklist. Results: The EULAR Outcomes Measures Library (OML), whose aims are to provide and to advise on PROs on a user-friendly manner albeit based on scientific grounds, has been launched and made accessible to all. PROs currently included cover any domain and, are generic or specifically target to the following diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, spondyloarthritis, low back pain, systemic lupus erythematosus, gout, osteoporosis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and fibromyalgia. Up to 236 instruments (106 generic and 130 specific) have been identified, evaluated, and included. The systematic review for SLE, which yielded 10 specific instruments, is presented here as an example. The OML website includes, for each PRO, information on the construct being measured and the extent of validation, recommendations for use, and available versions; it also contains a glossary on common validation terms. Conclusion: The OML is an in progress library led by rheumatologists, related professionals and patients, that will help to better understand and apply PROs in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.}, language = {en} }