Standard Psychometric Criteria for Measurements in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine.
Journal
American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation
ISSN: 1537-7385
Titre abrégé: Am J Phys Med Rehabil
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8803677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 05 2022
01 05 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
30
5
2021
medline:
23
4
2022
entrez:
29
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Measurements of person's variable, such as behavior, perceptions, or attitudes, are essential to physical and rehabilitation medicine in both clinical practice and research. These measurements are commonly based on cumulative questionnaires and follow special statistical rules, belonging to the domain of psychometrics. Selecting the most appropriate measurement is critical. This article provides an overview of the standard psychometric criteria to consider in measurement selection. The article focuses on the criteria related to the contemporary psychometric approach as it considers the construct, the target population, and the purpose for which measurements are used. Common strategies related to psychometric testing are discussed and applied to critically appraise, as a representative example, one of the most commonly used pain measurements: Brief Pain Inventory. The measurement construct, conceptual framework, target population, purpose, and psychometric properties are highlighted. Observed limitations for its implementation in different settings also are discussed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34050063
doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000001815
pii: 00002060-202205000-00011
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
473-481Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Financial disclosure statements have been obtained, and no conflicts of interest have been reported by the authors or by any individuals in control of the content of this article.
Références
Küçükdeveci AA, Tennant A, Grimby G, et al.: Strategies for assessment and outcome measurement in physical and rehabilitation medicine: an educational review. J Rehabil Med 2011;43:661–72
Tesio L: Physical and rehabilitation medicine targets relational organs. Int J Rehabil Res 2020;43:193–4
World Health Organization, The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: WHO-ICF model of disability . Geneva, 2002. Available at: https://www.who.int/classifications/icf/icfbeginnersguide.pdf
Tyson S, Greenhalgh J, Long AF, et al.: The use of measurement tools in clinical practice: an observational study of neurorehabilitation. Clin Rehabil 2010;24:74–81
Cleeland CS, Ryan K: The brief pain inventory. Pain Research Group 1991:143–7
Cicciola E, Foschi R, Lombardo GP: Making up intelligence scales: De Sanctis’s and Binet’s tests, 1905 and after. Hist Psychol 2014;17:223
Tesio L: Measuring behaviours and perceptions: Rasch analysis as a tool for rehabilitation research. J Rehabil Med 2003;35:105–15
Gélinas C, Loiselle CG, LeMay S, et al.: Theoretical, psychometric, and pragmatic issues in pain measurement. Pain Manag Nurs 2008;9:120–30
Galea MP: Introducing clinimetrics. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 2005;51:139
Dekker J, Dallmeijer AJ, Lankhorst GJ: Clinimetrics in rehabilitation medicine: current issues in developing and applying measurement instruments. J Rehabil Med 2005;37:193–201
Association AER, American Psychological Association & National Council for Measurement in Education [AERA, APA & NCME]: The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing Washington . The American Psychological Association, 1999, 2004. Available at: https://www.apa.org/science/programs/testing/standards
Rattray J, Jones MC: Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. J Clinical Nursing 2007;16:234–43
Tavakol M, Dennick R: Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ 2011;2:53
De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, et al.: Measurement in medicine: a practical guide . Cambridge University Press, 2011
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al.: The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:737–45
Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE: Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull 1955;52:281
McHorney CA, Tarlov AR: Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 1995;4:293–307
Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J: Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use . Oxford University Press, USA, 2015
Krabbe P: The measurement of health and health status: concepts, methods and applications from a multidisciplinary perspective . Academic Press, 2016
Cook DA, Beckman TJ: Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. Am J Med 2006;119:166.e7–16
Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G: Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:171–8
Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, et al.: Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:459–68
Beaton DE, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C: Evaluating changes in health status: reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:79–93
Cohen J: Statistical power analysis. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 1992;1:98–101
Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH: Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407–15
Younger J, McCue R, Mackey S: Pain outcomes: a brief review of instruments and techniques. Curr Pain Headache Rep 2009;13:39–43
Cleeland C: The Brief Pain Inventory User Guide . Houston, TX, Google Scholar, 2014
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, et al.: Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2005;113:9–19
Daut RL, Cleeland CS, Flanery RC: Development of the Wisconsin Brief Pain Questionnaire to assess pain in cancer and other diseases. Pain 1983;17:197–210
Cleeland C: Measurement of pain by subjective report, in: Chapman CR, Loeser JD (eds): Issues in Pain Measurement . New York, Raven Press, 1989
Gatchel RJ, Peng YB, Peters ML, et al.: The biopsychosocial approach to chronic pain: scientific advances and future directions. Psychol Bull 2007;133:581
Tan G, Jensen MP, Thornby JI, et al.: Validation of the Brief Pain Inventory for chronic nonmalignant pain. J Pain 2004;5:133–7
Keller S, Bann CM, Dodd SL, et al.: Validity of the brief pain inventory for use in documenting the outcomes of patients with noncancer pain. Clin J Pain 2004;20:309–18
Walton DM, Beattie T, Putos J, et al.: A Rasch analysis of the Brief Pain Inventory Interference subscale reveals three dimensions and an age bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;74:218–26
Grimmer-Somers K, Vipond N, Kumar S, et al.: A review and critique of assessment instruments for patients with persistent pain. J Pain Res 2009;2:21
Radbruch L, Loick G, Kiencke P, et al.: Validation of the German version of the Brief Pain Inventory. J Pain Symptom Manage 1999;18:180–7
Mendoza T, Mayne T, Rublee D, et al.: Reliability and validity of a modified Brief Pain Inventory short form in patients with osteoarthritis. Eur J Pain 2006;10:353–61
Song CY, Lin SF, Huang CY, et al.: Validation of the brief pain inventory in patients with low back pain. Spine 2016;41:E937–42
Williams VS, Smith MY, Fehnel SE: The validity and utility of the BPI interference measures for evaluating the impact of osteoarthritic pain. J Pain Symptom Manage 2006;31:48–57
Treede R-D, Rief W, Barke A, et al.: Chronic pain as a symptom or a disease: the IASP Classification of Chronic Pain for the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Pain 2019;160:19–27
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, et al.: Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain 2008;9:105–21
Melzack R: The short-form McGill pain questionnaire. Pain 1987;30:191–7
Franchignoni F, Salaffi F, Tesio L: How should we use the visual analogue scale (VAS) in rehabilitation outcomes? I: How much of what? The seductive VAS numbers are not true measures. J Rehabil Med 2012;44:798–9
Miettinen T, Kautiainen H, Mäntyselkä P, et al.: Pain interference type and level guide the assessment process in chronic pain: Categorizing pain patients entering tertiary pain treatment with the Brief Pain Inventory. PLoS One 2019;14:e0221437