The Functional Rating Index: Twenty Years of Invalid Measurement.
Journal
Spine
ISSN: 1528-1159
Titre abrégé: Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7610646
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 04 2022
01 04 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
25
11
2021
medline:
17
3
2022
entrez:
24
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The 2001 Functional Rating Index (FRI) was not developed under today's standard psychometric analysis. The original data of 108 cases were re-analyzed using Rasch item response theory. In 2015, 2 alternative forms were administered to an additional 140 patients for establishing and perhaps improving its psychometric characteristics. To evaluate the FRI with item response theory. The 2001 FRI data showed internal agreement among items and weak item-total correlation items. The FRI's true reliability and validity were never established. The original 2001 FRI 108 and two new versions with 140 respondents with back pain were compared by Rasch analysis for unidimensionality, local independence, monotonicity, and differential item functioning. All three versions exhibited more than the requisite single latent construct. The original Form 2001 had two items that were non-monotonic, four with differential item functioning (DIF), five with poor infit, and four with poor outfit. Form B had five nonmonotonic items, five had DIF, three had poor infit, and three had poor outfit. Form C had only monotonic items, one item with DIF, three items with poor infit, and two with poor outfit. The original FRI and alternative forms all fail failed crucial psychometric tests and fail to accurately measure more than one latent construct. It is thus unfit as a pain, function, and disability assessment. Only reducing the number of Likert choices improved the test. Other back pain assessments should be used instead, and all surveys would benefit from periodic item responses to adjust to shifts in grammar and meaning.Level of Evidence: 3.
Sections du résumé
STUDY DESIGN
The 2001 Functional Rating Index (FRI) was not developed under today's standard psychometric analysis. The original data of 108 cases were re-analyzed using Rasch item response theory. In 2015, 2 alternative forms were administered to an additional 140 patients for establishing and perhaps improving its psychometric characteristics.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the FRI with item response theory.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
The 2001 FRI data showed internal agreement among items and weak item-total correlation items. The FRI's true reliability and validity were never established.
METHODS
The original 2001 FRI 108 and two new versions with 140 respondents with back pain were compared by Rasch analysis for unidimensionality, local independence, monotonicity, and differential item functioning.
RESULTS
All three versions exhibited more than the requisite single latent construct. The original Form 2001 had two items that were non-monotonic, four with differential item functioning (DIF), five with poor infit, and four with poor outfit. Form B had five nonmonotonic items, five had DIF, three had poor infit, and three had poor outfit. Form C had only monotonic items, one item with DIF, three items with poor infit, and two with poor outfit.
CONCLUSION
The original FRI and alternative forms all fail failed crucial psychometric tests and fail to accurately measure more than one latent construct. It is thus unfit as a pain, function, and disability assessment. Only reducing the number of Likert choices improved the test. Other back pain assessments should be used instead, and all surveys would benefit from periodic item responses to adjust to shifts in grammar and meaning.Level of Evidence: 3.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34816815
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004298
pii: 00007632-202204010-00013
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
574-581Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Feise RJ, Menke JM. Functional rating index: a new valid and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical change in spinal conditions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26:78–86. discussion 87.
Lord FM, Novick MR. Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Welsley Publishing Company; 1968.
Novick MR. The axioms and principal results of classical test theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1966; 3:1–18.
Embertson SE, Reise SP. Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Assoc; 2000.
Englehard G. Invariant Measurement: Using Rasch Models in the Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences. New York: Routledge; 2013.
Smith RM. Item analysis in the Rasch model In: IPARM: Item person analysis with the Rasch model. 1991; Chicago: MESA Press, 164-181.
Wright BD, Masters GN. Press M. Models for measuring. Rating Scale Analysis. Chicago: MESA Press; 1982; 38-59.
Wright BD, Stone MH. The measurement model. In: Best Test Design: Rasch Measurement 1979; Chicago: Mesa Press, 1-24.
Industry Gf. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282. Accessed July 1, 2020.
USFDA. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims, Guidance for Industry. Guidance Document. 2009. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/patient-reported-outcome-measures-use-medical-product-development-support-labeling-claims.
Smith EV Jr. Evidence for the reliability of measures and validity of measure interpretation: a Rasch measurement perspective. J Appl Meas 2001; 2:281–311.
Mitchell SD. Unsimple Truths: Science, Complexity, and Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2009.
Richters JE. The Hubble hypothesis and the developmentalist's dilemma. Dev Psychopathol 1997; 9:193–199.
Wayt T. Chronic pain draining billions from US economy. The Academic Times. 2021. Available at: https://academictimes.com/chronic-pain-draining-billions-from-us-economy/.
Gaskin DJ, Richard P. The Economic Costs of Pain in the United States. In: Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Advancing Pain Research, Care, and Education. Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for Transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research, Appendix C. In: Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press (US); 2011: Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92521/.
Mitchell SD. Integrative pluralism. Biology and Philosophy 2002; 17:55–70.
Jabrayilov R, Emons WHM, Sijtsma K. Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory in individual change assessment. Appl Psychol Meas 2016; 40:559–572.
Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch Model. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 2nd edMahwah, NJ: 2007.
Wiklund I, Anatchkova M, Oko-Osi H, et al. Incorporating development of a patient-reported outcome instrument in a clinical drug development program: examples from a heart failure program. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2016; 14:131.
Anon. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims: Guidance for Industry. 2009. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/patient-reported-outcome-measures-use-medical-product-development-support-labeling-claims.
Mousavi SJ, Parnianpour M, Mehdian H, et al. The Oswestry Disability Index, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: translation and validation studies of the Iranian versions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006; 31:E454–459.
Yakut E, Duger T, Oksuz C, et al. Validation of the Turkish version of the Oswestry Disability Index for patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004; 29:581–585. discussion 585.
Costa LO, Maher CG, Latimer J, et al. Clinimetric testing of three self-report outcome measures for low back pain patients in Brazil: which one is the best? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008; 33:2459–2463.
Liu H, Tao H, Luo Z. Validation of the simplified Chinese version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34:1211–1216. discussion 1217.
Miekisiak G, Kollataj M, Dobrogowski J, et al. Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Polish version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38:E237–243.
Ansari NN, Feise RJ, Naghdi S, et al. The functional rating index: reliability and validity of the Persian language version in patients with neck pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37:E844–848.
Alnahhal A, May S. Validation of the Arabic version of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37:E1645–1650.
Matsubayashi Y, Takeshita K, Sumitani M, et al. Psychometric Validation of the Japanese Version of the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0143350.
Schmid J, Leiman JM. The development of heirarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika 1957; 22:53–61.
Menke JM. Do manual therapies help low back pain? A comparative effectiveness meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014; 39:E463–472.
Wang W, Guedj M, Bertrand V, et al. A Rasch analysis of the Charcot-Marie-Tooth Neuropathy Score (CMTNS) in a cohort of Charcot-Marie-tooth type 1A patients. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0169878.
Bjorner JB, Kreiner S, Ware JE, et al. Differential item functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51:1189–1202.
Karayannis NV, Baumann I, Sturgeon JA, et al. The impact of social isolation on pain interference: a longitudinal study. Ann Behav Med 2019; 53:65–74.
Tang NK, Salkovskis PM, Hodges A, et al. Effects of mood on pain responses and pain tolerance: an experimental study in chronic back pain patients. Pain 2008; 138:392–401.