A comparison of Rasch with Likert scoring to discriminate between patients' evaluations of total hip replacement surgery

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 331-338

  Fitzpatrick, R ^a,b   Norquist, J M ^a   Jenkinson, C ^b,c   Reeves, B C ^d   Morris, R W ^e   Murray, D W ^f   Gregg, P J ^g  

^a Institute of Health Sciences   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c PICKER INSTITUTE EUROPE   (United Kingdom)

^d LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^e ROYAL FREE AND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^f NUFFIELD ORTHOPAEDIC CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

^g SOUTH TEES HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Hip replacement surgery; Outcomes; Rasch measurement

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; AGED; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT SATISFACTION; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCORING SYSTEM; SURGICAL PATIENT; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 1642314087     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000018489.25151.e1     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Wampold BE. The promising advantages of Rasch. Rasch Meas Trans 1999; 13(2): 695.
2. Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating Scale Analysis. Chicago: MESA Press, 1982.
3. Wright BD, Stone MH. Best Test Design. Chicago: MESA Press, 1979.
4. Wright BD, Linacre JM. Observations are always ordinal, measurements, however, must be interval. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989; 70(12): 857-860.
5. Granger CV, Deutsch A, Linn R. Rasch analysis of the functional independence measure (FIM) mastery test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998; 79: 52-57.
6. MacKnight C, Rockwood K. Rasch analysis of the hierarchical assessment of balance and mobility (HABAM). J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 1224-1242.
7. Hays RD, Morales L, Reise S. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 2000; 38: S28-S42.
8. Fitzpatrick R, Shortall E, Sculpher M, et al. Primary total hip replacement surgery: A systematic review of outcomes and modelling of cost-effectiveness associated with different prostheses. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2(20): 1-64.
9. Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB, Langeland N, Vollset SE. Patient satisfaction and function after primary and revision total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 1998; (351): 135-148.
10. Bayley KB, London MR, Grunkmeier GL, Lensky DJ. Measuring the success of treatment in patient terms. Med Care 1995; 33(suppl 4): AS226-AS235.
11. McHorney CA, Haley SM, Ware JE, Jr. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10): II. Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50(4): 451-461.
12. Raczek AE, Ware JE, Bjorner JB, et al. Comparison of Rasch and summated rating scales constructed from SF-36 physical functioning items in seven countries: Results from the IQOLA project. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51(11): 1203-1214.
13. Morris R, Fitzpatrick R, Hajat S, et al. Primary total hip replacement: Variations in patient management in Oxford & Anglia, Trent, Yorkshire & Northern 'Regions'. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2001; 83: 190-196.
14. Hajat S, Fitzpatrick R, Morris R, et al. Does waiting for total hip replacement matter? Prospective cohort study. J Health Serv Res Policy 2002; 7(1): 19-25.
15. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Comparison of measures to assess outcomes in total hip replacement surgery. Qual Health Care 1996; 5: 81-88.
16. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996; 78: 185-190.
17. Norquist JM, Fitzpatrick R, Dawson J, Jenkinson C. Comparing alternative Rasch-based methods vs. raw scores in measuring change in health. Med Care 2004; 42(Suppl 1): 125-36.
18. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. The problem of 'Noise' in monitoring patient-assessed outcomes: Generic, disease-specific and site-specific instruments for total hip replacement. J Health Serv Res Policy 1996; 1(4): 224-231.
19. Fitzpatrick R, Dawson J. Health-related quality of life and the assessment of outcomes of total hip replacement surgery. Psychol Health 1997; 12: 793-803.
20. Dawson J, Jameson-Shortall E, et al. Issues relating to long-term follow-up in hip arthroplasty surgery - A review of 598 cases at 7 year comparing prostheses using revision rates, survival analysis, and patient-based measures. J Arthroplasty 2000; 15(6): 710-717.
21. Fitzpatrick R, Morris R, Hajat S, et al. The value of short and simple measures to assess outcomes for patients of total hip replacement surgery. Qual Health Care 2000; 9: 146-150.
22. McMurray R, Heaton J, Sloper P, Nettleton S. Measurement of patient perceptions of pain and disability in relation to total hip replacement: The place of the Oxford hip score in mixed methods. Qual Health Care 1999; 8: 228-233.
23. Shepperd S, Harwood D, Jenkinson C, Gray A, Vessey M, Morgan P. Randomised controlled trial comparing hospital at home care with inpatient hospital care. I: Three month follow up of health outcomes. BMJ 1998; 316(7147): 1786-1791.
24. Ludlow LH, Haley SM. Rasch model logits: Interpretation, use, and transformation. Educ Psychol Meas 1995; 55: 967-975.
25. Fayers P, Machin D. Quality of Life - Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. Wiley, 2000.
26. Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2001.
27. Wright BD, Linacre JM, Gustafson J-E, Martin-Lof P. Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Meas Trans 1994; 8(3): 370.
28. Smith EV, Jr. Understanding Rasch measurement: Metric development and score reporting in Rasch measurement. J App Meas 2000; 1(3): 303-326.
29. Efron B, Tibshirani R. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall, 1993.
30. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman JH. The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer, 2001.
31. Linacre JM, Wright BD, A user's guide to WINSTEPS: Rasch model computer program. Chicago: MESA Press, 2000.
32. Van Alphen A, Halfens R, Hasman A, Imbos T. Likert or Rasch? nothing is more applicable than good theory. J Adv Nursing 1994; 20: 196-201.
33. Birbeck GL, Kim S, Hays RD, Vickrey BG. Quality of life measures in epilepsy. How well can they detect change over time? Neurology 2000; 54(5): 1822-1827.
34. Wolfe F. Which HAQ is best? A comparison of the HAQ, MHAQ and RA-HAQ, a difficult 8 item HAQ (DHAQ), and a rescored 20 item HAQ (HAQ20): Analyses in 2491 rheumatoid arthritis patients following leflunomide initiation. J Rheumatol 2001; 28: 982-989.
35. Ritter M, Albohm MJ. Overview: Maintaining outcomes for total hip arthroplasty. The past, present, and future. Clin Orthop 1997; 344: 81-87.
36. Pacault-Legendre V, Courpied JP. Survey of patient satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty of the Hip. Int Orthop 1999; 23: 23-30.
37. Mahomed N, Liang M, Cook EF, et al. The importance of patient expectations in predicting functional outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. J Rheumatol 2002; 29: 1273-1279.
38. Smith RM, Schumacker RE, Bush MJ. Using item mean squares to evaluate fit to the Rasch model. J Outcome Meas 1998; 2(1): 66-78.
39. Wright BD. Reliability and separation. Rasch Meas Trans 1996; 9(4): 472.
40. Wolfe EW, Chiu CW. Measuring pretest-posttest change with a Rasch rating scale model. J Outcomes Meas 1999; 3(2): 134-161.
41. Wolfe EW, Chiu CW. Measuring change across multiple occasions using the Rasch rating scale model. J Outcome Meas 1999; 3(4): 360-381.
42. Fischer GH, Ponocny I. Extended rating scale and partial credit models for assessing change. In: Fischer GH, Molenaar IW (eds), Rasch Models - Foundations, Recent Developments and Applications. Berlin: Springer ed. 1996; 353-370.
43. Fischer GH. Linear logistic models for change. In: Fischer GH, Molenaar IW (eds), Rasch Models - Foundations, Recent Developments and Applications. Berlin: Springer ed. 1996; 157-180.