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

Welkom bij Scalda & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Scalda heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen.Je kunt de producten hieronder links aanschaffen en rechts inloggen.

» Andere revante producten voor Scalda studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Schaf de BSL Academy aan: 

BSL Academy mbo AG

Eenmaal aangeschaft kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Heb je een vraag, neem dan contact op met Jan van der Velden.

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:

01-05-2009

Rasch analysis of 24-, 18- and 11-item versions of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire

Auteur: Megan Davidson

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 4/2009

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

The aim of this study was to examine fit of the original 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and three short-form versions to a Rasch model with particular attention to targeting of item difficulty and to differential item functioning.

Methods

Cross-sectional survey of 140 people with low back pain seeking physiotherapy treatment. Data were analysed using a dichotomous Rasch model.

Results

All versions showed adequate overall data fit to the Rasch model, with few misfitting items. Person separation was around 0.85 for all versions. Item 5 (use a handrail to get upstairs) showed differential item functioning by age. Targeting of persons of high ability was poor and short-form versions also had poor targeting of persons of low ability. Items of similar difficulty clustered in the centre of the logit scale.

Conclusion

Although the Roland data fit the Rasch model, there were insufficient items of higher difficulty to sufficiently evaluate disability in persons with mild disability. Short-form versions also lacked items of lower difficulty.
vorige artikel Replenishing a computerized adaptive test of patient-reported daily activity functioning
volgende artikel Establishing construct validity for the thyroid-specific patient reported outcome measure (ThyPRO): an initial examination
Voetnoten
1
Rumm Laboratory Pty. Ltd. (2003) 14 Dodonaea Court, Duncraig, Western Australia http://​www.​rummlab.​com.
 
Literatuur
1.
2.
3.
Haigh, R., Tennant, A., Biering, S. F., Grimby, G., Marincek, C., Phillips, S., et al. (2001). The use of outcome measures in physical medicine and rehabilitation within Europe. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 33(6), 273–278. doi:10.​1080/​1650197017532364​64.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Torenbeek, M., Caulfield, B., Garrett, M., & Van Harten, W. (2001). Current use of outcome measures for stroke and low back pain rehabilitation in five European countries: First results of the across project. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue Internationale de Recherches de Readaptation, 24(2), 95–101. doi:10.​1097/​00004356-200106000-00002.PubMed
5.
6.
Patrick, D. L., Deyo, R. A., Atlas, S. J., Singer, D. E., Chapin, A., & Keller, R. B. (1995). Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica. Spine, 20(17), 1899–1908. discussion 1909. doi:10.​1097/​00007632-199509000-00011.
7.
Davidson, M., & Keating, J. L. (2002). A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: Reliability and responsiveness. Physical Therapy, 82(1), 8–24.PubMed
8.
9.
Stratford, P. W., Binkley, J., Solomon, P., Finch, E., Gill, C., & Moreland, J. (1996). Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris Questionnaire. Physical Therapy, 76(4), 359–365. discussion 366–358.
10.
11.
Stratford, P. W., Binkley, J. M., Riddle, D. L., & Guyatt, G. H. (1998). Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: Part 1. Physical Therapy, 78(11), 1186–1196.PubMed
12.
13.
Williams, R. M., & Myers, A. M. (2001). Support for a shortened Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for patients with acute low back pain. Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada, 53(1), 60–66.
14.
15.
Atlas, S. J., Deyo, R. A., van den Ancker, M., Singer, D. E., Keller, R. B., & Patrick, D. L. (2003). The Maine-Seattle Back Questionnaire: A 12-item disability questionnaire for evaluating patients with lumbar sciatica or stenosis: Results of a derivation and validation cohort analysis. Spine, 28(16), 1869–1876. doi:10.​1097/​01.​BRS.​0000083205.​82614.​01.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Cook, K. F., Choi, S. W., Crane, P. K., Deyo, R. A., Johnson, K. L., & Amtmann, D. (2008). Letting the cat out of the bag: Comparing computer adaptive tests and an 11-item short form of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Spine, 33(12), 1378–1383. doi:10.​1097/​BRS.​0b013e3181732acb​.PubMedCrossRef
17.
18.
Ostelo, R. W., de Vet, H. C., Knol, D. L., & van den Brandt, P. A. (2004). 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire was preferred out of six functional status questionnaires for post-lumbar disc surgery. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57(3), 268–276. doi:10.​1016/​j.​jclinepi.​2003.​09.​005.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Garratt, A. M., In collaboration with the United Kingdom Back Pain Excercise and Manipulation Trial (2003). Rasch analysis of the Roland Disability Questionnaire. Spine, 28(1), 79–84. doi:10.​1097/​00007632-200301010-00019.
20.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danmarks Paedogogiske Institute.
21.
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. doi:10.​1016/​0895-4356(96)00016-9.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Linacre, J. M. (1994). Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7(4), 328.
24.
Wolfe, E. W., & Smith, E. V. (2007). Instrument development tools and activities for measure validation using Rasch models: Part II—validation activities. Journal of Applied Measurement, 8(2), 204–234.PubMed
25.
Wright, B. D. (1996). Reliabilty and separation. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 9(4), 472.
26.
Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (1995). Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
Tennant, A., & Pallant, J. F. (2006). Unidimensionality matters! (a tale to two smiths?). Rasch Measurement Transactions, 20(1), 1048–1051.
28.
Smith, R. M., Schumacker, R. E., & Bush, M. J. (1998). Using item mean squares to evaluate fit to the Rasch model. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 2(1), 66–78.PubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Rasch analysis of 24-, 18- and 11-item versions of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire
Auteur
Megan Davidson
Publicatiedatum
01-05-2009
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 4/2009
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9456-4

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2009

Having a fit: impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT’s unidimensionality assumption

Association of insomnia with quality of life, work productivity, and activity impairment

Replenishing a computerized adaptive test of patient-reported daily activity functioning

The construct validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 in assessing mental health in population health surveys

Normative data of the SF-12 health survey with validation using postmyocardial infarction patients in the Dutch population

  • Open Access

Establishing construct validity for the thyroid-specific patient reported outcome measure (ThyPRO): an initial examination