Calibration of an item pool for assessing the disability associated with foot pain: an application of item response theory to the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index

Physiotherapy

Volumn 93, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 89-95

  Cook, Chad E ^a   Cleland, Joshua ^b   Pietrobon, Ricardo ^c   Garrow, A P ^d   Macfarlane, G J ^e  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b New Hampshire Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center   (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Item Bank; Item response theory; Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index; Outcome scale

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CALIBRATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FOOT PAIN; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MANCHESTER FOOT PAIN AND DISABILITY INDEX; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHYSICAL DISABILITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; UNITED KINGDOM; VALIDATION STUDY; VALIDITY;

EID: 34848836409     PISSN: 00319406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.physio.2006.12.009     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Pietrobon R., Coeytaux R., Carey T., Richardson W., and DeVellis R. Standard scales for measurement of functional outcome for cervical pain or dysfunction. Spine 27 (2002) 515-522
2. Liang M.H. Longitudinal construct validity: establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med Care 38 (2005) 85-90
3. Patrick D.L., and Chaing Y.P. Measurement of health outcomes in treatment effectiveness. Med Care 38 (2000) 14-25
4. Budiman-Mak E., Conrad K.J., and Roach K.E. The Foot Function Index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol 44 (1991) 561-570
5. Saag K.G., Saltzman C.L., Brown C.K., and Budiman-Mak E. The Foot Function Index for measuring rheumatoid arthritis pain: evaluating side-to-side reliability. Foot Ankle Int 17 (1996) 506-510
6. Bowling A., and Grundy E. Activities of daily living: changes in functional ability in three samples of elderly and very old people. Age Ageing 26 (1997) 107-114
7. Williams A.E., and Bowden A.P. Meeting the challenge for foot health in rheumatic diseases. Foot 14 (2004) 154-158
8. Bennet P.J., Patterson C., Wearing S., and Baglioni T. Development and validation of a questionnaire designed to measure foot-health status. J Am Podiatric Assoc 88 (1998) 419-428
9. Garrow A.P., Papageorgiou A.C., Silman A.J., Thomas E., Jayson M.I., and MacFarlane G.J. Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess disabling foot pain. Pain 85 (2000) 107-113
10. Dawson J., Coffey J., Doll H., Lavis G., Cooke P., Herron M., et al. A patient-based questionnaire to assess outcomes of foot surgery: validation in the context of surgery for hallux valgus. Qual Life Res 15 (2006) 1211-1222
11. Niki H., Aoki H., Inokuchi S., Ozeki S., Kinoshita M., Kura H., et al. Development and reliability of a standard rating system for outcome measurement of foot and ankle disorders II: interclinician and intraclinician reliability and validity of the newly established standard rating scales and Japanese Orthopedic Association rating scale. J Orthop Sci 10 (2005) 466-474
12. Button G., and Pinney S. A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid and reliable, and responsive system. Foot Ankle Int 25 (2004) 521-525
13. Johanson N.A., Liang M.H., Daltroy L., Rudicel S., and Richmond J. American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons lower limb outcomes assessment instruments. Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 86-A (2004) 902-909
14. Garrow A.P., Silman A.J., and Macfarlane G.J. The Chesire Foot Pain and Disability Survey: a population survey assessing prevalence and associations. Pain 110 (2004) 378-384
15. Hays R.D., Morales L.S., and Reise S.P. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 38 (2000) 28-42
16. Chang C.H., and Reeve B.B. Item response theory and its application to patient-reported outcomes measurement. Eval Health Prof 28 (2005) 264-282
17. Meelenbergh G.J. Generalized linear item response theory. Psychol Bull 15 (1994) 300-307
18. Hays R.D., Brown J., Brown L.U., Spritzer K.L., and Crall J.J. Classical test theory and item response theory analyses of multi-item scales assessing parent's perceptions of their children's dental care. Med Care 44 (2006) S60-S68
19. Fries J.F., Bruce B., Bjorner J., and Rose M. More relevant, precise, and efficient items for assessment of physical function and disability: moving beyond the classic instruments. Ann Rheum Dis 65 3 (2006) 16-21
20. Schunemann H.J., Akl E.A., and Guyatt G.H. Interpreting the results of patient reported outcome measures in clinical trials: the clinician's perspective. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4 (2006) 62
21. Chiu Y.P., Fritz S.L., Light K.E., and Velozo C.A. Use of item response analysis to investigate measurement properties and clinical validity of data for the dynamic gait index. Phys Ther 86 (2006) 778-787
22. Kawata A.K., Coeytaux R.R., De Vellis R.F., Finkel A.G., Mann J.D., and Khan K. Psychometric properties of the HIT-6 among patients in a headache specialty practice. Headache 45 (2005) 638-643
23. Cook C., and Pietrobon R. Dimesionality, internal consistency, and item analysis of the NHANES ADL instrument among patients with report of frequent severe headaches. Physiother Res Int 11 (2006) 84-92
24. Cook C., Richardson J.K., and Pietrobon R. Dimensionality, internal consistency, and item analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys activities of daily living instrument among patients with report of low back pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 29 (2006) 183-189
25. Cook C., Richardson J.K., Pietrobon R., Braga L., Silva H., and Turner D. Development of the NHANES ADL scale: factor analysis, item response theory analysis, and criterion validity. Disabil Rehabil 28 (2006) 929-935
26. Cook K.R., Monahan P.O., and McHorney C.A. Delicate balance between theory and practice: health status assessment and item response theory. Med Care 41 (2003) 571-574
27. Bhakta P., Tennant A., Horton M., Lawton G., and Andrich D. Using item response theory to explore the psychometric properties of extending matching questions examination in undergraduate medical education. BMC Med. Educ. 5 (2005) 9
28. Steinberg L., and Thissen D. Item response theory in personality research. In: Fiske S.T. (Ed). Personality research, methods, and theory (1995), Erlbaum, Hillsdale
29. van der Linden W., and Hambleton R. Handbook of modern item response theory (1997), Springer, New York
30. Embretson S., and Reise S.P. Item response theory for psychologists (2000), Erlbaum, Hillsdale
31. Nunnaly J. Psychometric theory (1978), McGraw-Hill, New York