Cross-diagnostic validity of the SF-36 physical functioning scale in patients with stroke, multiple sclerosis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A study using Rasch analysis

Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 163-169

  Dallmeijer, Annet J ^a   de Groot, Vincent ^a   Roorda, Leo D ^b   Schepers, Vera P M ^c   Lindeman, Eline ^c   van den Berg, Leonard H ^d   Beelen, Anita ^e   Dekker, Joost ^a   Lankhorst, G J ^a   IJzerman, M J ^a   Beckerman, H ^a   Prevo, A J ^d   Stam, H J ^f   Odding, E ^f   van Baalen, B ^f  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b Center for Rehabilitation and Rheumatology   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^e ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^f ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; Cross diagnostic validity; Differential item functioning; Multiple sclerosis; Physical functioning; Rasch model; Stroke

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS; ARTICLE; BATH; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; RASCH ANALYSIS; REHABILITATION CARE; SHORT FORM 36; STROKE; WALKING; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DISABILITY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; PSYCHOMETRICS;

EID: 33947727732     PISSN: 16501977     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2340/16501977-0024     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Ware JE, Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473-483.
2. Ware JE, Jr. SF-36 health survey update. Spine 2000; 25: 3130-3139.
3. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Jr, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993; 31: 247-263.
4. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Jr, Lu JF, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 1994; 32: 40-66.
5. Haley SM, McHorney CA, Ware JE, Jr. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10): I. Unidimensionality and reproducibility of the Rasch item scale. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 671-684.
6. WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
7. 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.
8. Silverstein B, Kilgore KM, Fisher WP, Harley JP, Harvey RF. Applying psychometric criteria to functional assessment in medical rehabilitation: I. Exploring unidimensionality. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1991; 72: 631-637.
9. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IA. Psychometric theory. 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
10. Haigh R, Tennant A, Biering-Sorensen F, Grimby G, Marincek C, Phillips S, et al. The use of outcome measures in physical medicine and rehabilitation within Europe. J Rehabil Med 2001; 33: 273-278.
11. Lundgren-Nilsson A, Grimby G, Ring H, Tesio L, Lawton G, Slade A, et al. Cross-cultural validity of functional independence measure items in stroke: a study using Rasch analysis. J Rehabil Med 2005; 37: 23-31.
12. Roorda LD, Jones CA, Waltz M, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM, van der Eijken JW, et al. Satisfactory cross cultural equivalence of the Dutch WOMAC in patients with hip osteoarthritis waiting for arthroplasty. Ann Rheum Dis 2004; 63: 36-42.
13. Tennant A, Penta M, Tesio L, Grimby G, Thonnard JL, Slade A, 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 Suppl 1: I37-I48.
14. Wright BD, Linacre JM, Smith RM, Heinemann AW, Granger CV. FIM measurement properties and Rasch model details. Scand J Rehabil Med 1997; 29: 267-272.
15. Tesio L. Measuring behaviours and perceptions: Rasch analysis as a tool for rehabilitation research. J Rehabil Med 2003; 35: 105-115.
16. Davidson M, Keating JL, Eyres S. A low back-specific version of the SF-36 Physical Functioning scale. Spine 2004; 29: 586-594.
17. Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Garratt A, Peto V, Stewart-Brown S. 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 2001; 71: 220-224.
18. Raczek AE, Ware JE, Bjorner JB, Gandek B, Haley SM, Aaronson NK, et al. Comparison of Rasch and summated rating scales constructed from SF-36 physical functioning items in seven countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1203-1214.
19. Bode RK, Lai JS, Cella D, Heinemann AW. Issues in the development of an item bank. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84 Suppl 2: S52-S60.
20. Brooks BR, Miller RG, Swash M, Munsat TL. El Escorial revisited: revised criteria for the diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Other Motor Neuron Disord 2000; 1: 293-299.
21. Andrich D, Sheridan BS, Luo G. RUMM2020: Rasch Unidimensional Models for Measurement. Perth Western Australia: RUMM Laboratory; 2002.
22. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston MA: New England Medical Center, The Health Institute; 1993.
23. Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PD, Essink-Bot ML, Fekkes M, Sanderman R, et al. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1055-1068.
24. Failde I, Ramos I. Validity and reliability of the SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire in patients with coronary artery disease. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 359-365.
25. Gandek B, Ware JE, Jr, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, Apolone G, Bjorner J, et al. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability of the SF-36 in eleven countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1149-1158.
26. Ware JE, Jr, Kosinski M, Gandek B, Aaronson NK, Apolone G, Bech P, et al. The factor structure of the SF-36 Health Survey in 10 countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1159-1165.
27. Moorer P, Suurmeije T, Foets M, Molenaar IW. Psychometric properties of the RAND-36 among three chronic diseases (multiple sclerosis, rheumatic diseases and COPD) in The Netherlands. Qual Life Res 2001; 10: 637-645.
28. 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: 451-461.
29. Stucki G, Daltroy L, Katz JN, Johannesson M, Liang MH. Interpretation of change scores in ordinal clinical scales and health status measures: the whole may not equal the sum of the parts. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 711-717.