A systematic literature review on the application of rasch analysis in musculoskeletal disease - A special interest group report of OMERACT 11

Journal of Rheumatology

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 159-164

  Leung, Ying Ying ^a   Png, May Ee ^b   Conaghan, Philip ^c,d   Tennant, Alan ^c  

^a DUKE NUS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Singapore)

^b Singapore General Hospital   (Colombia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^d Chapel Allerton Hospital   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Item response theory; Musculoskeletal disorders; Rasch analysis; Rheumatology

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTERIZED ADAPTIVE TESTING; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE; OSTEOARTHRITIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; RASCH ANALYSIS; RATING SCALE; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ITEM RESPONSE THEORY; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS; RASCH ANALYSIS; RHEUMATOLOGY;

HUMANS; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RHEUMATOLOGY;

EID: 84891756735     PISSN: 0315162X     EISSN: 14992752     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.130814     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research, 1960, and Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1980.
2. Tennant A, Conaghan PG. The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:1358-62.
3. Fischer GH, Molenaar IW, editors. Rasch models: foundations, recent developments, and applications. New York: Springer; 1995.
4. Smith EV. Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. J Appl Meas 2002;3:205-31.
5. Katz PP, Radvanski DC, Allen D, Buyske S, Schiff S, Nadkarni A, et al. Development and validation of a short form of the valued life activities disability questionnaire for rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2011;63:1664-71.
6. Wolfe F, Michaud K, Pincus T. Development and validation of the health assessment questionnaire II: a revised version of the health assessment questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50:3296-305.
7. Wolfe F, van der Heijde DM, Larsen A. Assessing radiographic status of rheumatoid arthritis: introduction of a short erosion scale. J Rheumatol 2000;27:2090-9.
8. Davis A, Perruccio A, Canizares M, Tennant A, Hawker G, Conaghan P, et al. The development of a short measure of physical function for hip OA HOOS-Physical Function Shortform (HOOS-PS): an OARSI/OMERACT initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008;16:551-9.
9. Hibbard JH, Mahoney ER, Stockard J, Tusler M. Development and testing of a short form of the Patient Activation Measure. Health Serv Res 2005;40:1918-30.
10. Beaton D, Wright J, Katz J. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Jt Surg Am 2005;87:1038-46.
11. Elhan AH, Oztuna D, Kutlay S, Küçükdeveci AA, Tennant A. An initial application of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) for measuring disability in patients with low back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008;9:166.
12. Hart DL, Mioduski JE, Stratford PW. Simulated computerized adaptive tests for measuring functional status were efficient with good discriminant validity in patients with hip, knee, or foot/ankle impairments. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:629-38.
13. Hart DL, Cook KF, Mioduski JE, Teal CR, Crane PK. Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with shoulder impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:290-8.
14. Hart DL, Mioduski JE, Werneke MW, Stratford PW. Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with lumbar spine impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:947-56.
15. 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.
16. Doward LC, Spoorenberg A, Cook SA, Whalley D, Helliwell PS, Kay LJ, et al. Development of the ASQoL: a quality of life instrument specific to ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2003;62:20-6.
17. Pallant JF, Tennant A. An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: An example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Br J Clin Psychol 2007;46:1-8.
18. Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, Holman HR. Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1980;23:137-45.
19. Meenan RF, Gertman PM, Mason JH. Measuring health status in arthritis. The arthritis impact measurement scales. Arthritis Rheum 1980;23:146-52.
20. Andrich D. Rating scales and Rasch measurement. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2011;11:571-85.
21. Van Newby A, Conner GR, Bunderson CV. The Rasch model and additive conjoint measurement. J Appl Meas 2009;10:348-54.
22. Wright BD, Linacre JM. Observations are always ordinal; measurements, however, must be interval. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989;70:857-60.
23. Merbitz C, Morris J, Grip JC. Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989;70:308-32.
24. Boers M, Brooks P, Strand CV, Tugwell P. The OMERACT filter for Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. J Rheumatol 1998;25:198-9.
25. Gershon RC. Computer adaptive testing. J Appl Meas 2005; 6:109-27.
26. Lai JS, Cella D, Chang CH, Bode RK, Heinemann AW. Item banking to improve, shorten and computerize self-reported fatigue: an illustration of steps to create a core item bank from the FACIT-Fatigue Scale. Qual Life Res 2003;12:485-501.
27. Thissen D, Mislevy RJ. Testing algorithms. In: Wainer H, Dorans N, Eignor D, Flaugher R, Green B, Mislevy R, et al, eds. Computerized adaptive testing: a primer (second edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000:101-34.