Rasch validation and comparison of the German versions of the Locomotor Capabilities Index-5 and Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire 2.0 in lower-limb prosthesis users.
Journal
International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation
ISSN: 1473-5660
Titre abrégé: Int J Rehabil Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7805421
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Sep 2021
01 Sep 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
26
5
2021
medline:
7
10
2021
entrez:
25
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to compare, through Rasch analysis, the psychometric properties of the Locomotor Capabilities Index (LCI-5) and Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire (PMQ 2.0) in German lower-limb prosthesis users. The questionnaires were concurrently administered to a convenience sample of 98 consecutively recruited individuals with lower limb amputation (LLA) (male/female = 61/37; mean age 57 ± 14 years). LCI-5 showed disordered rating scale thresholds (one response option in three items required collapsing); local dependence between two items (resolved by creating a testlet); underfit of one item ('Get up from the floor'); and presence of a second weak dimension. PMQ 2.0 showed a correctly functioning rating scale; good fit of the data to the model (apart from some overfit); local dependence between two items (absorbed by creating a testlet); and essential unidimensionality. At scale co-calibration onto a common interval-scaled metric, PMQ 2.0 was better targeted than LCI-5 (i.e. the extent of item difficulty was more appropriate for the sample) and its operational range allowed a more precise measurement of higher locomotor abilities. The correlation between LCI-5 and PMQ 2.0 scores was rho = 0.78. In conclusion, LCI-5 revealed some drawbacks, confirming a previous Rasch study; refinement of its rating scale and item selection seems therefore warranted. The PMQ 2.0 demonstrated good overall measurement quality, in line with previous Italian and Slovene studies. The operational range of the PMQ 2.0 makes it more suitable than LCI-5 for assessing people with high locomotor abilities.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34034290
doi: 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000478
pii: 00004356-202109000-00008
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
233-240Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Fortington LV, Rommers GM, Geertzen JH, Postema K, Dijkstra PU. Mobility in elderly people with a lower limb amputation: a systematic review. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012; 13:319–325.
van Schaik L, Hoeksema S, Huvers LF, Geertzen JHB, Dijkstra PU, Dekker R. The most important activities of daily functioning: the opinion of persons with lower limb amputation and healthcare professionals differ considerably. Int J Rehabil Res. 2020; 43:82–89.
Heinemann AW, Connelly L, Ehrlich-Jones L, Fatone S. Outcome instruments for prosthetics: clinical applications. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014; 25:179–198.
Sions JM, Beisheim EH, Seth M. Selecting, administering, and interpreting outcome measures among adults with lower-limb loss: an update for clinicians. Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep. 2020; 8:92–109.
de Wit M, Versloot J, Zenlea I, Goethals ER. Using person-reported outcomes (PROs) to motivate young people with diabetes. Curr Diab Rep. 2020; 20:23.
Hawkins AT, Henry AJ, Crandell DM, Nguyen LL. A systematic review of functional and quality of life assessment after major lower extremity amputation. Ann Vasc Surg. 2014; 28:763–780.
Spoden M, Nimptsch U, Mansky T. Amputation rates of the lower limb by amputation level - observational study using German national hospital discharge data from 2005 to 2015. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019; 19:8.
Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, Erikson P; ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health. 2005; 8:94–104.
de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DJ. Measurement in medicine. A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
Franchignoni F, Orlandini D, Ferriero G, Moscato TA. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the locomotor capabilities index in adults with lower-limb amputation undergoing prosthetic training. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004; 85:743–748.
Franchignoni F, Traballesi M, Monticone M, Giordano A, Brunelli S, Ferriero G. Sensitivity to change and minimal clinically important difference of the locomotor capabilities index-5 in people with lower limb amputation undergoing prosthetic training. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2019; 62:137–141.
Franchignoni F, Monticone M, Giordano A, Rocca B. Rasch validation of the prosthetic mobility questionnaire: a new outcome measure for assessing mobility in people with lower limb amputation. J Rehabil Med. 2015; 47:460–465.
Burger H, Giordano A, Bavec A, Franchignoni F. The prosthetic mobility questionnaire, a tool for assessing mobility in people with lower-limb amputation: validation of PMQ 2.0 in Slovenia. Int J Rehabil Res. 2019; 42:263–269.
Burger H, Bavec A, Giordano A, Franchignoni F. A new valid walking aid scale better predicts distance walked by prosthesis users than prosthetic mobility questionnaire 2.0 and activities-specific balance confidence scale. Int J Rehabil Res. 2021; 44:99–103.
Ranker AH, Schäfer A, Schöttker-Königer T, Davies-Knorr T, Greitemann B, Ranker A. Validity and reliability of the German version of the locomotor capabilities index-5 (LCI-5). Z Orthop Unfall. 2021. [Epub ahead of print]
Tennant A, Conaghan PG. The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Rheum. 2007; 57:1358–1362.
Tesio L. Measuring behaviours and perceptions: Rasch analysis as a tool for rehabilitation research. J Rehabil Med. 2003; 35:105–115.
Bond TG, Yan Z, Heene M. Applying the Rasch model – Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. 4th ed. New York: Routledge; 2021.
Boone WJ, Staver JR. Advances in Rasch Analyses in the Human Sciences. Cham (CH): Springer Nature; 2020.
Franchignoni F, Magistroni E, Parodi G, Massazza G, Ferriero G, Giordano A. Development of a simplified cold intolerance symptom severity questionnaire in patients with peripheral nerve injury. Int J Rehabil Res. 2019; 42:63–67.
Monticone M, Ferriero G, Giordano A, Foti C, Franchignoni F. Rasch analysis of the incontinence impact questionnaire short version (IIQ-7) in women with urinary incontinence. Int J Rehabil Res. 2020; 43:261–265.
Linacre JM. Investigating rating scale category utility. J Outcome Meas. 1999; 3:103–122.
Linacre JM. A user’s guide to Winsteps Ministep. Rasch-model computer programs. Program Manual 4.8.0. Chicago, IL: Winsteps.com; 2021. https://www.winsteps.com/a/Winsteps-Manual.pdf .
Christensen KB, Makransky G, Horton M. Critical values for Yen’s Q3: identification of local dependence in the Rasch model using residual correlations. Appl Psychol Meas. 2017; 41:178–194.
Christensen KB, Kreiner S, Mesbah M, eds. Rasch Models in Health. Hoboken, NJ: ISTE Ltd and Wiley & Sons; 2013.
Müller M. Item fit statistics for Rasch analysis: can we trust them? J Stat Distrib App. 2020; 7:5.
Yu CH, Osborn Popp SE. Test equating by common items and common subjects: concepts and applications. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2005; 10:1–19.
Linacre JM. Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Meas Trans. 1994; 7:328.
Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
Franchignoni F, Giordano A, Ferriero G, Muñoz S, Orlandini D, Amoresano A. Rasch analysis of the locomotor capabilities index-5 in people with lower limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007; 31:394–404.
Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life – the assessment, analysis and reporting of patient-reported outcomes. Chichester: Wiley & Sons; 2016.
Gauthier-Gagnon C, Grisé MC. Tools to measure outcome of people with a lower limb amputation: update on the PPA and LCI. J Prosthet Orthot. 2006; 18:P61–P67.
Reise SP, Waller NG, Comrey AL. Factor analysis and scale revision. Psychol Assess. 2000; 12:287–297.
Andrich D, Marais I. A course in Rasch measurement theory. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2019.
Franchignoni F, Giordano A, Ferriero G, Orlandini D, Amoresano A, Perucca L. Measuring mobility in people with lower limb amputation: Rasch analysis of the mobility section of the prosthesis evaluation questionnaire. J Rehabil Med. 2007; 39:138–144.
Franchignoni F, Bavec A, Zupanc U, Giordano A, Albensi C, Burger H. Validation of the activities-specific balance confidence scale with 5-option response format in slovene lower-limb prosthetic users. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021;102:619–625.
Spoden M. Lower extremity amputation in Germany: regional analysis using nationwide hospital discharge data 2011-2015. Gesundheitswesen. 2019; 81:422–430. [in German].
Scott NW, Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bottomley A, de Graeff A, Groenvold M, et al.; EORTC Quality of Life Group; Quality of Life Cross-Cultural Meta-Analysis Group. A simulation study provided sample size guidance for differential item functioning (DIF) studies using short scales. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62:288–295.
Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, Terwee CB. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018; 27:1147–1157.