Refine
Document Type
Language
- English (5)
Has Fulltext
- no (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- Barthel Index; Functional Independence Measure; Rasch Measurement Model; activities of daily living; outcome assessment (healthcare); psychometrics; quality in healthcare; rehabilitation. (1)
- Common metric (1)
- DASH (1)
- Database Searching (1)
- Differential item functioning (DIF) (1)
- HAQ (1)
- Imputation techniques (1)
- International Classification of Functioning (1)
- Local item dependencies (LID) (1)
- MTT assay (1)
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.
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.
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.
The Impact of Missing Values and Single Imputation upon Rasch Analysis Outcomes: A Simulation Study
(2018)
Imputation becomes common practice through availability of easy-to-use algorithms and software. This study aims to determine if different imputation strategies are robust to the extent and type of missingness, local item dependencies (LID), differential item functioning (DIF), and misfit when doing a Rasch analysis. Four samples were simulated and represented a sample with good metric properties, a sample with LID, a sample with DIF, and a sample with LID and DIF. Missing values were generated with increasing proportion and were either missing at random or completely at random. Four imputation techniques were applied before Rasch analysis and deviation of the results and the quality of fit compared. Imputation strategies showed good performance with less than 15% of missingness. The analysis with missing values performed best in recovering statistical estimates. The best strategy, when doing a Rasch analysis, is the analysis with missing values. If for some reason imputation is necessary, we recommend using the expectation-maximization algorithm.
Objective: To examine the use of the term ‘metric’ in health and social sciences’ literature, focusing on the interval scale implication of the term in Modern Test Theory (MTT).
Materials and methods: A systematic search and review on MTT studies including ‘metric’ or ‘interval scale’ was performed in the health and social sciences literature. The search was restricted to 2001–2005 and 2011–2015. A Text Mining algorithm was employed to operationalize the eligibility criteria and to explore the uses of ‘metric’. The paradigm of each included article (Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT), Item Response Theory (IRT) or both), as well as its type (Theoretical, Methodological, Teaching, Application, Miscellaneous) were determined. An inductive thematic analysis on the first three types was performed.
Results: 70.6% of the 1337 included articles were allocated to RMT, and 68.4% were application papers. Among the number of uses of ‘metric’, it was predominantly a synonym of ‘scale’; as adjective, it referred to measurement or quantification. Three incompatible themes ‘only RMT/all MTT/no MTT models can provide interval measures’ were identified, but ‘interval scale’ was considerably more mentioned in RMT than in IRT.
Conclusion: ‘Metric’ is used in many different ways, and there is no consensus on which MTT metric has interval scale properties. Nevertheless, when using the term ‘metric’, the authors should specify the level of the metric being used (ordinal, ordered, interval, ratio), and justify why according to them the metric is at that level.