@article{MaritzTennantFellinghaueretal.2020, author = {Maritz, Roxanne and Tennant, Alan and Fellinghauer, Carolina and Stucki, Gerold and Prodinger, Birgit}, title = {Creating a common metric based on existing activities of daily living tools to enable standardized reporting of functioning outcomes achieved during rehabilitation}, series = {Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine}, volume = {52}, journal = {Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine}, number = {7}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Objective: Many different assessment tools are used to assess functioning in rehabilitation; this limits the comparability and aggregation of respective data. The aim of this study was to outline the development of an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)-based interval-scaled common metric for 2 assessment tools assessing activities of daily living: the Functional Independence Measure (FIMTM) and the Extended Barthel Index (EBI), used in Swiss national rehabilitation quality reports. Methods: The conceptual equivalence of the 2 tools was assessed through their linking to the ICF. The Rasch measurement model was then applied to create a common metric including FIMTM and EBI. Subjects: Secondary analysis of a sample of 265 neurological patients from 5 Swiss clinics. Results: ICF linking found conceptual coherency of the tools. An interval-scaled common metric, including FIMTM and EBI, could be established, given fit to the Rasch model in the related analyses. Conclusion: The ICF-based and interval-scaled common metric enables comparison of patients and clinics functioning outcomes when different activities of daily living tools are used. The common metric can be included in a Standardized Assessment and Reporting System for functioning information in order to enable data aggregation and comparability. Keywords: Barthel Index; Functional Independence Measure; Rasch Measurement Model; activities of daily living; outcome assessment (healthcare); psychometrics; quality in healthcare; rehabilitation.}, language = {en} } @article{ProdingerCoenenHammondetal.2022, author = {Prodinger, Birgit and Coenen, Michaela and Hammond, Alison and K{\"u}{\c{c}}{\"u}kdeveci, Ay{\c{s}}e A. and Tennant, Alan}, title = {Scale Banking for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures That Measure Functioning in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Daily Activities Metric}, series = {Arthritis Care \& Research}, volume = {74}, journal = {Arthritis Care \& Research}, number = {4}, pages = {579 -- 587}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Objective Functioning is an important outcome for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Heterogeneity of respective patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) challenges direct comparisons between their results. This study aimed to standardize reporting of such PROMs measuring functioning in RA to facilitate comparability. Methods Common-item nonequivalent group design with the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) as a common scale across data sets from various countries (including the UK, Turkey, and Germany) to establish a common metric was used. Other PROMs included are the physical function items of the Multidimensional HAQ (MDHAQ), the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHODAS II), the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey, and 4 short forms (20, 10, 6, and 4 physical function items) from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. As the HAQ includes mobility, self-care, and domestic life items, this study focuses on these 3 domains. PROMs were described using standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable difference (SDD). A Rasch measurement model was used to create the common metric. Results The range of the SEM was 0.2 (MDHAQ) to 7.4 (SF-36 health survey physical functioning domain). The SDD revealed a range from 9.7\% (WOMAC rating scale) to 33.5\% (WHODAS physical functioning domain). PROMs co-calibration revealed fit to the Rasch measurement model. A transformation table was developed to allow exchange between PROM scores. Conclusion Scores between the daily activity PROMs commonly used in RA can now be compared. Factors such as SEM and SDD help to determine the choice of a PROM in clinical practice and research.}, language = {en} } @article{ProdingerCoenenHammondetal.2020, author = {Prodinger, Birgit and Coenen, Michaela and Hammond, Alison and K{\"u}{\c{c}}{\"u}kdeveci, Ayse A. and Tennant, Alan}, title = {Scale-Banking for Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Measuring Functioning in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Daily Activities Metric}, series = {Arthritis Care \& Research}, journal = {Arthritis Care \& Research}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Objective: Functioning is an important outcome for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management. Heterogeneity of respective patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) challenges direct comparisons between their results. This study aimed to standardize reporting of such PROMs measuring functioning in RA to facilitate comparability. Methods: Common Item Non-Equivalent Groups Design (NEAT) with the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) as a common scale across data sets from various countries (incl. UK, Turkey and Germany) to establish a common metric. Other PROMs included are the Physical Function items of the Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ), Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule Version 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0), and four short forms (20, 10, 6, and 4 physical function items) from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). As the HAQ includes mobility, self-care and domestic life items, this study focuses on these three domains. PROMs were described using Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) and Smallest Detectable Difference (SDD). Rasch Measurement model was used to create the common metric. Results: Range of SEM is 0.2 (MDHAQ) to 7.4 (SF36-PF). SDD revealed a range from 9.7 \% (WOMAC-RAT) to 33.5 \% (WHODAS-PF). PROMs co-calibration revealed fit to the Rasch measurement model. A transformation table was developed to allow exchange between PROMs scores. Discussion: Scores between the Daily Activity PROMs commonly used in RA can now be compared. Factors such as SEM and SDD help determine choice of PROM in clinical practice and research.}, language = {en} }