PURPOSE: To investigate whether the Observer Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) can serve as a generic measure for scar quality across different scar types. METHODS: A collection of POSAS scores derived from several clinical trials on burn (n = 404), linear (n = 384), and keloidal scars (n = 282) was analyzed using the partial credit model of the Rasch analysis package RUMM2030. RESULTS: Differential item functioning (DIF) was observed for the Observer Scale of the POSAS between the three scar types for the items pliability, thickness, and surface area, which could be solved by item splitting. The items pigmentation and thickness showed disordered thresholds, considerable misfit, and unpredictability. CONCLUSION: Users of the Observer Scale of the POSAS must be aware that the raw scores obtained from burn, linear, and keloidal scars cannot be compared without the scar-specific DIF adjustment of the items pliability, thickness, and surface area.
PURPOSE: To investigate whether the Observer Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) can serve as a generic measure for scar quality across different scar types. METHODS: A collection of POSAS scores derived from several clinical trials on burn (n = 404), linear (n = 384), and keloidal scars (n = 282) was analyzed using the partial credit model of the Rasch analysis package RUMM2030. RESULTS: Differential item functioning (DIF) was observed for the Observer Scale of the POSAS between the three scar types for the items pliability, thickness, and surface area, which could be solved by item splitting. The items pigmentation and thickness showed disordered thresholds, considerable misfit, and unpredictability. CONCLUSION: Users of the Observer Scale of the POSAS must be aware that the raw scores obtained from burn, linear, and keloidal scars cannot be compared without the scar-specific DIF adjustment of the items pliability, thickness, and surface area.
Authors: Pauline D H M Verhaegen; Paul P M van Zuijlen; Noor M Pennings; Jan van Marle; Frank B Niessen; Chantal M A M van der Horst; Esther Middelkoop Journal: Wound Repair Regen Date: 2009 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.617
Authors: Pauline D H M Verhaegen; Martijn B A van der Wal; Esther Middelkoop; Paul P M van Zuijlen Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Pauline D H M Verhaegen; Martijn B A van der Wal; Monica C T Bloemen; Jan Dokter; Paris Melis; Esther Middelkoop; Paul P M van Zuijlen Journal: Burns Date: 2011-07-02 Impact factor: 2.744
Authors: H P Ehrlich; A Desmoulière; R F Diegelmann; I K Cohen; C C Compton; W L Garner; Y Kapanci; G Gabbiani Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 1994-07 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Lieneke J Draaijers; Fenike R H Tempelman; Yvonne A M Botman; Wim E Tuinebreijer; Esther Middelkoop; Robert W Kreis; Paul P M van Zuijlen Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Lily R Mundy; H Catherine Miller; Anne F Klassen; Stefan J Cano; Andrea L Pusic Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg Date: 2016-06-29 Impact factor: 2.326
Authors: Sophie E R Horbach; Albert Wolkerstorfer; Daniel Martijn de Bruin; Sanne M Jansen; Chantal M A M van der Horst Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 2.692