Karl Bang Christensen1, Kristian Thorborg2,3, Per Hölmich2, Mikkel Bek Clausen4,2,3. 1. Section of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. kach@sund.ku.dk. 2. Sports Orthopedic Research Center-Copenhagen (SORC-C), Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital, Amager-Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Research-Copenhagen (PMR-C), Amager-Hvidovre Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Health and Technology, Metropolitan University College, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The psychometric properties of the shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI) have been extensively evaluated using classical test theory, but very few studies have applied Rasch analysis. The purpose of this study was to validate the Danish version using Rasch analysis. METHODS: Responses to the SPADI from 229 patients (48% female, mean age 54.5) were included in the Rasch analysis. Overall fit, individual item fit, local response dependence, dimensionality, targeting, reliability, and differential item functioning (DIF) were examined. RESULTS: After iterative analyses, good fit to the Rasch model was observed, with acceptable targeting and uni-dimensionality. SPADI should be reported as two separate subscales: Pain and Functional Disability. The pain subscale initially demonstrated misfit due to local dependence and DIF, but a log linear Rasch model showed good fit to the Rasch model with acceptable targeting and uni-dimensionality. A six-item version of the disability subscale exhibited adequate fit in the Danish version. The same items were also found to fit the Rasch model in the English version. CONCLUSIONS: The measurement properties of the Danish SPADI are similar to those of the English version. SPADI should be reported as two separate subscales. For the pain subscale, DIF with respect to age was disclosed, but the impact was small. The eight-item disability subscale did not fit the Rasch model. A six-item version of the disability subscale exhibited adequate fit in the Danish version. The same items were also found to fit the Rasch model in the English version.
PURPOSE: The psychometric properties of the shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI) have been extensively evaluated using classical test theory, but very few studies have applied Rasch analysis. The purpose of this study was to validate the Danish version using Rasch analysis. METHODS: Responses to the SPADI from 229 patients (48% female, mean age 54.5) were included in the Rasch analysis. Overall fit, individual item fit, local response dependence, dimensionality, targeting, reliability, and differential item functioning (DIF) were examined. RESULTS: After iterative analyses, good fit to the Rasch model was observed, with acceptable targeting and uni-dimensionality. SPADI should be reported as two separate subscales: Pain and Functional Disability. The pain subscale initially demonstrated misfit due to local dependence and DIF, but a log linear Rasch model showed good fit to the Rasch model with acceptable targeting and uni-dimensionality. A six-item version of the disability subscale exhibited adequate fit in the Danish version. The same items were also found to fit the Rasch model in the English version. CONCLUSIONS: The measurement properties of the Danish SPADI are similar to those of the English version. SPADI should be reported as two separate subscales. For the pain subscale, DIF with respect to age was disclosed, but the impact was small. The eight-item disability subscale did not fit the Rasch model. A six-item version of the disability subscale exhibited adequate fit in the Danish version. The same items were also found to fit the Rasch model in the English version.
Entities:
Keywords:
Psychometrics; Rasch model; Shoulder pain and disability index
Authors: Maria Orlando Orlando Edelen; David Thissen; Jeanne A Teresi; Marjorie Kleinman; Katja Ocepek-Welikson Journal: Med Care Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 2.983
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: Christina Jerosch-Herold; Rachel Chester; Lee Shepstone; Joshua I Vincent; Joy C MacDermid Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-11-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: M B Clausen; A Witten; K Holm; K B Christensen; M L Attrup; P Hölmich; K Thorborg Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Kim Michéle Feder; Hans Bjarke Rahr; Marianne Djernes Lautrup; Heidi Klakk Egebæk; Robin Christensen; Kim Gordon Ingwersen Journal: Trials Date: 2022-08-20 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Lusine Vaganian; Maren Boecker; Sonja Bussmann; Michael Kusch; Hildegard Labouvie; Jürgen Margraf; Alexander L Gerlach; Jan C Cwik Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 4.144
Authors: Lusine Vaganian; Sonja Bussmann; Maren Boecker; Michael Kusch; Hildegard Labouvie; Alexander L Gerlach; Jan C Cwik Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 4.147
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