Megan Davidson1. 1. La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, m.davidson@latrobe.edu.au
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine fit of the original 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and three short-form versions to a Rasch model with particular attention to targeting of item difficulty and to differential item functioning. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of 140 people with low back pain seeking physiotherapy treatment. Data were analysed using a dichotomous Rasch model. RESULTS: All versions showed adequate overall data fit to the Rasch model, with few misfitting items. Person separation was around 0.85 for all versions. Item 5 (use a handrail to get upstairs) showed differential item functioning by age. Targeting of persons of high ability was poor and short-form versions also had poor targeting of persons of low ability. Items of similar difficulty clustered in the centre of the logit scale. CONCLUSION: Although the Roland data fit the Rasch model, there were insufficient items of higher difficulty to sufficiently evaluate disability in persons with mild disability. Short-form versions also lacked items of lower difficulty.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine fit of the original 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and three short-form versions to a Rasch model with particular attention to targeting of item difficulty and to differential item functioning. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of 140 people with low back pain seeking physiotherapy treatment. Data were analysed using a dichotomous Rasch model. RESULTS: All versions showed adequate overall data fit to the Rasch model, with few misfitting items. Person separation was around 0.85 for all versions. Item 5 (use a handrail to get upstairs) showed differential item functioning by age. Targeting of persons of high ability was poor and short-form versions also had poor targeting of persons of low ability. Items of similar difficulty clustered in the centre of the logit scale. CONCLUSION: Although the Roland data fit the Rasch model, there were insufficient items of higher difficulty to sufficiently evaluate disability in persons with mild disability. Short-form versions also lacked items of lower difficulty.
Authors: R Haigh; A Tennant; F Biering-Sørensen; G Grimby; C Marincek; S Phillips; H Ring; L Tesio; J L Thonnard Journal: J Rehabil Med Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 2.912
Authors: Steven J Atlas; Richard A Deyo; Melissa van den Ancker; Daniel E Singer; Robert B Keller; Donald L Patrick Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2003-08-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Luciana Gazzi Macedo; Chris G Maher; Jane Latimer; Mark J Hancock; Luciana A C Machado; James H McAuley Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2010-10-31 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Tiê Parma Yamato; Chris G Maher; Bruno T Saragiotto; Mark J Catley; James H McAuley Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Peter M ten Klooster; Erik Taal; Liseth Siemons; Johanna C M Oostveen; Etelka J Harmsen; Peter S Tugwell; Tamara Rader; Anne Lyddiatt; Mart A F J van de Laar Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Saad M Alsaadi; James H McAuley; Julia M Hush; Delwyn J Bartlett; Nicholas Henschke; Ronald R Grunstein; Chris G Maher Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2013-06-27 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Martijn B A van der Wal; Wim E Tuinebreijer; Monica C T Bloemen; Pauline D H M Verhaegen; Esther Middelkoop; Paul P M van Zuijlen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-05-20 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Judith Gecht; Verena Mainz; Maren Boecker; Hans Clusmann; Matthias Florian Geiger; Markus Tingart; Valentin Quack; Siegfried Gauggel; Allen W Heinemann; Christian-Andreas Müller Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Paul Hendrick; Stephan Milosavljevic; Leigh Hale; Deirdre A Hurley; Suzanne M McDonough; Peter Herbison; G David Baxter Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2013-04-05 Impact factor: 2.362