Item response theory and its application in neurology. Measurement of activity limitations in neurologic patients;Item-response-theorie und deren anwendung in der neurologie. Messung von aktivitätseinschränkungen neurologischer patienten

Nervenarzt

Volumn 75, Issue 12, 2004, Pages 1179-1186

  Gauggel, S ^a   Bocker M ^a   Zimmermann, P ^b   Privou, C ^b   Lutz, D ^b  

^a CHEMNITZ UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^b Reha Zentrum Reichshof   (Germany)

Author keywords

Activity limitations; Functional independence measure; Rasch analysis; Rating scale analysis

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BRAIN INJURY; FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASURE; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; PSYCHOMETRY; RASCH ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STROKE;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, NEUROLOGICAL; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NERVOUS SYSTEM DISEASES; NEUROLOGY; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 12444335909     PISSN: 00282804     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00115-004-1734-3     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Antonucci G, Aprile T, Paolucci S (2002) Rasch analysis of the Rivermead mobility index: a study using mobility measures of first-stroke inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 83:1442-1449
2. Bode RK, Heinemann AW, Semik P (2000) Measurement properties of the Galveston orientation and amnesia test (GOAT) and improvement patterns during inpatient rehabilitation. J Head Trauma Rehabil 15:637-655
3. Bond TG, Fox CM (2001) Applying the Rasch model - fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Erlbaum, Mahwah
4. Dittmar SS, Gresham GE (1997) Functional assessment and outcome measures for the rehabilitation health professional. Aspen Publishers, Gaithersburg
5. Embretson SE, Reise SP (2000) Item response theory for psychologists. Erlbaum, Mahwah
6. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR (1975) Minimental state: a practical method for grading the state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12:189-198
7. Gauggel S, Bode R, Peleska B (2000) Relationship between cognitive impairments and rated activity restrictions in stroke patients. J Head Trauma Rehabil 15:710-723
8. Grimby G, Andren E, Daving Y et al. (1998) Dependence and perceived difficulty in daily activities in community-living stroke survivors 2 years after stroke: a study of instrumental structures. Stroke 29:1843-1849
9. Haigh R, Tennant A, Biering-Sorensen F et al. (2001) The use of outcome measures in physical medicine and rehabilitation within Europe. J Rehabil Med 33:273-278
10. Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Sherwin FS et al. (1987) A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer MJ (ed) Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurement. Brooks, Baltimore, pp 115-121
11. Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP (2000) Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care (Suppl) 38:II28-42
12. Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Garratt A et al. (2001) Can item response theory reduce patient burden when measuring health status in neurological disorders? Results from Rasch analysis of the SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10). J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 71:220-224
13. Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD et al. (1994) The structure and stability of the functional independence measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75:127-132
14. Linacre JM, Wright BD (1999) WINSTEPS for PC compatibles. Mesa Press, Chicago
15. Lindeboom R, Vermeulen M, Holman R et al. (2003) Activities of daily living instruments:optimizing scales for neurologic assessments. Neurology 60:738-742
16. Malec JF, Moessner AM, Kragness M et al. (2000) Refining a measure of brain injury sequelae to predict postacute rehabilitation outcome: rating scale analysis of the Mayo-Portland adaptability inventory. J Head Trauma Rehabil 15:670-682
17. Masur H (2000) Skalen und Scores in der Neurologie. Thieme, Stuttgart New York
18. McHorney CA, Cohen AS (2000) Equating health status measures with item response theory: illustrations with functional status items. Med Care (Suppl) 38:II43-59
19. Mungas D, Reed BR (2000) Application of item response theory for development of a global functioning measure of dementia with linear measurement properties. Stat Med 19:1631-1644
20. Tennant A (2000) Measuring outcome. Brit Med Bull 56:287-295
21. Tennant A, Geddes JML, Chamberlain MA (1996) The Barthel index: an ordinal score or interval level measure? Clin Rehabil 10:301-308
22. Tesio L, Cantagallo A (1998) The functional assessment measure (FAM) in closed traumatic brain injury outpatients: a Rasch-based psychometric study. J Outcome Meas 2:79-96
23. Ware JE (2003) Conceptualization and measurement of health-related quality of life: comments on an evolving field. Arch Phys Med Rehabil (Suppl 2) 84:S43-51
24. Willmes K (1997) Applications of polytomous Rasch models to the subtest written language of the Aachen aphasia test (AAT). In: Rost J, Langeheine R (eds) Applications of latent trait and latent class models in the social sciences. Waxmann, Münster, pp 127-137
25. Wright BD, Linacre JM (1989) Observations are always ordinal; measurements, however, must be interval. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 70:857-860
26. Wright BD, Linacre JM (1994) Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Meas Trans 8:370
27. Wright BD, Stone MH (1979) Best test design. Mesa Press, Chicago