Validation of an item bank in a sample of community-dwelling survivors of a stroke

Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 107-114

  Cook, Chad E ^a   Goode, Adam ^a   Erb, Daniel ^a   Richardson, Jan K ^a   Pietrobon, Ricardo ^b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Activities of daily living; Item response theory; NHANES; Stroke

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANAMNESIS; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY; DISEASE SEVERITY; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; RELIABILITY; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STROKE; SURVIVAL RATE; VALIDATION STUDY;

EID: 33846316787     PISSN: 15398412     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1519/00139143-200612000-00005     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Thom T, Haase N, Rosamond W, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2006 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation. 2006;113:e85-151.
2. Feigin VL, Lawes CM, Bennett DA, Anderson CS. Stroke epidemiology: a review of population-based studies of incidence, prevalence, and case-fatality in the late 20th century. Lancet Neurol. 2003;2:43-53.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Prevalence of disabilities and associated health conditions among adults-United States, 1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2001;50:120-125.
4. Jorgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS. Stroke. Neurologic and functional recovery the Copenhagen Stroke Study. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 1999;10:887-906.
5. Duncan P, Studenski S, Richards L, et al. Randomized clinical trial of therapeutic exercise in subacute stroke. Stroke. 2003;34:2173-2180.
6. Lai SM, Studenski S, Duncan PW, Perera S. Persisting consequences of stroke measured by the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke. 2002;33:1840-1844.
7. Wade DT. Evaluating outcome in stroke rehabilitation (quality control and clinical audit). Scand J Rehabil Med Suppl. 1992;26:97-104.
8. Wade DT. Is stroke rehabilitation worthwhile? Curr Opin Neurol Neurosurg. 1993;6:78-82.
9. Reker DM, Hoenig H, Zolkewitz MA, et al. The structure and structural effects of VA rehabilitation bedservice care for stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2000;37:483-491.
10. Ottenbacher KJ, Jannell S. The results of clinical trials in stroke rehabilitation research. Arch Neurol. 1993;50:37-44.
11. Langhorne P, Williams BO, Gilchrist W, Howie K. Do stroke units save lives? Lancet. 1993;342:395-398.
12. Cook C, Stickley L, Ramey K, Knotts VJ. A variables associated with occupational and physical therapy stroke rehabilitation utilization and outcomes. J Allied Health. 2005;34:3-10.
13. Alexander H, Bugge C, Hagen S. What is the association between the different components of stroke rehabilitation and health outcomes? Clin Rehabil. 2001;15:207-215.
14. Leidy NK. Using functional status to assess treatment outcomes. Chest. 1994;106:1645-1646.
15. Testa MA, Simonson DC. Assesment of quality-of-life outcomes. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:835-840.
16. Holman R, Weisscher N, Glas CA, et al. The Academic Medical Center Linear Disability Score (ALDS) item bank: item response theory analysis in a mixed patient population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:83.
17. Bode RK, Lai JS, Cella D, Heinemann AW. Issues in the development of an item bank. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:S52-60.
18. McHorney CA. Ten recommendations for advancing patient-centered outcomes measurement for older persons. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:403-409.
19. Lin JH, Wang WC, Sheu CF, Lo SK, Hsueh IP, Hsieh CL. A Rasch analysis of a self-perceived change in quality of life scale in patients with mild stroke. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:2259-2263.
20. van Hartingsveld F, Lucas C, Kwakkel G, Lindeboom R. Improved interpretation of stroke trial results using empirical Barthel item weights. Stroke. 2006;37:162-166.
21. Dallmeijer AJ, Dekker J, Roorda LD, et al. Differential item functioning of the Functional Independence Measure in higher performing neurological patients. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37:346-352.
22. Hsueh IP, Wang WC, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. Rasch analysis of combining two indices to assess comprehensive ADL function in stroke patients. Stroke. 2004;35:721-726.
23. Tennant A, Penta M, Tesio L, et al. Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through differential item functioning within the framework of the Rasch model: the PRO-ESOR project. Med Care. 2004;42:137-48.
24. Lindeboom R, Vermeulen M, Holman R, De Haan RJ. Activities of daily living instruments:optimizing scales for neurologic assessments. Neurology. 2003;60:738-742.
25. Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care. 2000;38:II28-42.
26. van der Linden W, Hambleton R. Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. New York, NY: Springer; 1997.
27. Pietrobon R, Coeytaux RR, Carey TS, Richardson WJ, DeVellis RF. Standard scales for measurement of functional outcome for cervical pain or dysfunction: a systematic review. Spine. 2002;27:515-522.
28. NHANES 1999-2000 Public Data Release File Documentation. Available at:http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/NHANES19992000FAQS.htm. Accessed November 30, 2004.
29. McKevitt C, Redfern J, La-Placa V, Wolfe CD. Defining and using quality of life: a survey of health care professionals. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17:865-870.
30. Reyment RA, Jöreskog KG. Applied Factor Analysis in the Natural Sciences. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press; 1993.
31. Kawata AK, Coeytaux RR, Devellis RF, Finkel AG, Mann JD, Kahn K. Psychometric properties of the HIT-6 among patients in a headache-specialty practice. Headache. 2005;45:638-643.
32. Liu M, Chino N, Tuji T, Masakado Y, Hase K, Kimura A. Psychometric properties of the Stroke Impairment Assessment Set (SIAS). Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002;16:339-351.