Validity and reliability of the movement ability measure: A self-report instrument proposed for assessing movement across diagnoses and ability levels

Physical Therapy

Volumn 87, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 899-916

  Allen, Diane D ^a,b  

^a SAMUEL MERRITT COLLEGE   (United States)

^b BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BODY MOVEMENT; CALIFORNIA FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION; CONCURRENT VALIDITY; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; EVALUATION; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MOVEMENT ABILITY MEASURE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIABILITY; SCORING SYSTEM; SELF REPORT; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; VOLUNTEER;

ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOVEMENT; PHYSICAL FITNESS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SELF DISCLOSURE;

EID: 34347336506     PISSN: 00319023     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20060197     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Cott CA, Finch E, Gasner D, et al. The movement continuum theory of physical therapy. Physiother Can. 1995;47:87-95.
2. Wilson M. Constructing Measures: An Item Response Modeling Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2005.
3. Wright B. A history of social science measurement. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 1997;16:33-45, 52.
4. Wilson M, Allen DD, Li JC. Improving measurement in health education and health behavior research using item response modeling: introducing item response modeling. Health Educ Res. 2006;21(suppl 1):i4-i18.
5. Wilson M, Allen DD, Li JC. Improving measurement in health education and health behavior research using item response modeling: comparison with the classical test theory approach. Health Educ Res. 2006;21(suppl 1):i19-i32.
6. Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating Scale Analysis. Chicago, Ill: MESA Press; 1982.
7. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 1999.
8. Guide to Physical Therapist Practice. 2nd ed. Phys Ther. 2001;81:9-746.
9. Fung S, Byl N, Melnick M, et al. Functional outcomes: the development of a new instrument to monitor the effectiveness of physical therapy. European Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1997;7:31-41.
10. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.
11. Allen DD. Validity, Reliability, and Responsiveness of the Movement Ability Measure, a New Instrument Proposed for Assessing Physical Therapist Competence [dissertation]. Berkeley, Calif: Graduate School of Education, University of California; 2005.
12. ACER ConQuest: Generalised Item Response Modelling Software. Version 2.0. Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia: ACER (Australian Council for Educational Research) Press; 2003.
13. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Health; 2000.
14. SEPUP. Issues, Evidence and You: Teacher's Guide. Berkeley, Calif: Lawrence Hall of Science; 1995.
15. 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.