OBJECTIVE: To determine the psychometric properties of the 23-item version of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ-23) and to quantify their stability across 2 cultures/languages and 2 types of care-settings. METHODS: Rasch analysis of data from 1,000 patients with low back pain from primary care (UK and Denmark) and secondary care (Denmark). RESULTS: The RMDQ-23 is unidimensional if local item dependency issues are accommodated, but contains several misfitting or overdiscriminating items, some poor targeting of items, and the scoring of 4-5 items is differentially affected by common clinical characteristics (such as age, gender, pain intensity, pain duration and care setting), depending on the country. CONCLUSION: As similar results have been found for the RMDQ-24, we believe it is timely to reconsider whether: (i) the RMDQ should be reconstructed using an item-response theory-based approach that includes consideration of new items and response options; or (ii) the use of alternative questionnaires should be recommended, such as the Oswestry Disability Index, that have shown evidence of fitting the Rasch model; or (iii) a completely new condition-specific questionnaire should be developed, perhaps utilizing a computerized adaptive testing platform.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the psychometric properties of the 23-item version of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ-23) and to quantify their stability across 2 cultures/languages and 2 types of care-settings. METHODS: Rasch analysis of data from 1,000 patients with low back pain from primary care (UK and Denmark) and secondary care (Denmark). RESULTS: The RMDQ-23 is unidimensional if local item dependency issues are accommodated, but contains several misfitting or overdiscriminating items, some poor targeting of items, and the scoring of 4-5 items is differentially affected by common clinical characteristics (such as age, gender, pain intensity, pain duration and care setting), depending on the country. CONCLUSION: As similar results have been found for the RMDQ-24, we believe it is timely to reconsider whether: (i) the RMDQ should be reconstructed using an item-response theory-based approach that includes consideration of new items and response options; or (ii) the use of alternative questionnaires should be recommended, such as the Oswestry Disability Index, that have shown evidence of fitting the Rasch model; or (iii) a completely new condition-specific questionnaire should be developed, perhaps utilizing a computerized adaptive testing platform.
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: Allison Marshall; Christopher T Joyce; Bryan Tseng; Hanna Gerlovin; Gloria Y Yeh; Karen J Sherman; Robert B Saper; Eric J Roseen Journal: Pain Med Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 3.637
Authors: Elizabeth N Mutubuki; Hans van Helvoirt; Johanna M van Dongen; Carmen L A Vleggeert-Lankamp; Frank J P M Huygen; Maurits W van Tulder; Hanneke A H J Klopper-Kes; Raymond W J G Ostelo Journal: Physiother Res Int Date: 2019-07-09