Christina Jerosch-Herold1, Rachel Chester2, Lee Shepstone3, Joshua I Vincent4,5, Joy C MacDermid4,6. 1. School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, NR4 7TJ, UK. c.jerosch-herold@uea.ac.uk. 2. School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, NR4 7TJ, UK. 3. Norwich Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, NR4 7TJ, UK. 4. School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada. 5. Lifemark Physiotherapy, London, ON, N6C 4Y7, Canada. 6. School of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI) has been extensively evaluated for its psychometric properties using classical test theory (CTT). The purpose of this study was to evaluate its structural validity using Rasch model analysis. METHODS: Responses to the SPADI from 1030 patients referred for physiotherapy with shoulder pain and enrolled in a prospective cohort study were available for Rasch model analysis. Overall fit, individual person and item fit, response format, dependence, unidimensionality, targeting, reliability and differential item functioning (DIF) were examined. RESULTS: The SPADI pain subscale initially demonstrated a misfit due to DIF by age and gender. After iterative analysis it showed good fit to the Rasch model with acceptable targeting and unidimensionality (overall fit Chi-square statistic 57.2, p = 0.1; mean item fit residual 0.19 (1.5) and mean person fit residual 0.44 (1.1); person separation index (PSI) of 0.83. The disability subscale however shows significant misfit due to uniform DIF even after iterative analyses were used to explore different solutions to the sources of misfit (overall fit (Chi-square statistic 57.2, p = 0.1); mean item fit residual 0.54 (1.26) and mean person fit residual 0.38 (1.0); PSI 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Rasch Model analysis of the SPADI has identified some strengths and limitations not previously observed using CTT methods. The SPADI should be treated as two separate subscales. The SPADI is a widely used outcome measure in clinical practice and research; however, the scores derived from it must be interpreted with caution. The pain subscale fits the Rasch model expectations well. The disability subscale does not fit the Rasch model and its current format does not meet the criteria for true interval-level measurement required for use as a primary endpoint in clinical trials. Clinicians should therefore exercise caution when interpreting score changes on the disability subscale and attempt to compare their scores to age- and sex-stratified data.
PURPOSE: The shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI) has been extensively evaluated for its psychometric properties using classical test theory (CTT). The purpose of this study was to evaluate its structural validity using Rasch model analysis. METHODS: Responses to the SPADI from 1030 patients referred for physiotherapy with shoulder pain and enrolled in a prospective cohort study were available for Rasch model analysis. Overall fit, individual person and item fit, response format, dependence, unidimensionality, targeting, reliability and differential item functioning (DIF) were examined. RESULTS: The SPADI pain subscale initially demonstrated a misfit due to DIF by age and gender. After iterative analysis it showed good fit to the Rasch model with acceptable targeting and unidimensionality (overall fit Chi-square statistic 57.2, p = 0.1; mean item fit residual 0.19 (1.5) and mean person fit residual 0.44 (1.1); person separation index (PSI) of 0.83. The disability subscale however shows significant misfit due to uniform DIF even after iterative analyses were used to explore different solutions to the sources of misfit (overall fit (Chi-square statistic 57.2, p = 0.1); mean item fit residual 0.54 (1.26) and mean person fit residual 0.38 (1.0); PSI 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Rasch Model analysis of the SPADI has identified some strengths and limitations not previously observed using CTT methods. The SPADI should be treated as two separate subscales. The SPADI is a widely used outcome measure in clinical practice and research; however, the scores derived from it must be interpreted with caution. The pain subscale fits the Rasch model expectations well. The disability subscale does not fit the Rasch model and its current format does not meet the criteria for true interval-level measurement required for use as a primary endpoint in clinical trials. Clinicians should therefore exercise caution when interpreting score changes on the disability subscale and attempt to compare their scores to age- and sex-stratified data.
Entities:
Keywords:
Psychometrics; Rasch model; Shoulder pain and disability index
Authors: Felix Angst; Hans-Kaspar Schwyzer; André Aeschlimann; Beat R Simmen; Jörg Goldhahn Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Corinne St-Pierre; François Desmeules; Clermont E Dionne; Pierre Frémont; Joy C MacDermid; Jean-Sébastien Roy Journal: Disabil Rehabil Date: 2015-03-24 Impact factor: 3.033
Authors: Matthew J Page; Hsiaomin Huang; Arianne P Verhagen; Joel J Gagnier; Rachelle Buchbinder Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2018-01-22 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: L Linsell; J Dawson; K Zondervan; P Rose; T Randall; R Fitzpatrick; A Carr Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2005-11-01 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: M Thoomes-de Graaf; G G M Scholten-Peeters; J M Schellingerhout; A M Bourne; R Buchbinder; M Koehorst; C B Terwee; A P Verhagen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-04-02 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Maryam Daghiani; Hossein Negahban; Neda Mostafaee; Mohammad H Ebrahimzadeh; Ali Moradi; Amir R Kachooei; Aref Saidi Journal: Arch Bone Jt Surg Date: 2022-08
Authors: Mikkel Bek Clausen; Thomas Bandholm; Michael Skovdal Rathleff; Karl Bang Christensen; Mette Kreutzfeldt Zebis; Thomas Graven-Nielsen; Per Hölmich; Kristian Thorborg Journal: Trials Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Mikkel Bek Clausen; Per Hölmich; Michael Rathleff; Thomas Bandholm; Karl Bang Christensen; Mette Kreutzfeldt Zebis; Kristian Thorborg Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 6.202