Leonardo Pellicciari1, Daniele Piscitelli2,3,4, Benedetta Basagni5, Antonio De Tanti5, Lorella Algeri6, Serena Caselli7,8, Maria Paola Ciurli9, Jessica Conforti5, Anna Estraneo10,11, Pasquale Moretta12, Maria Grazia Gambini13, Maria Grazia Inzaghi14, Gianfranco Lamberti15, Mauro Mancuso16,17, Maria Luisa Rinaldesi18, Matteo Sozzi19, Laura Abbruzzese17, Marina Zettin20,21, Fabio La Porta22. 1. Neurorehabilitation Research Laboratory, IRCCS San Raffaele Pisana , Rome, Italy. 2. School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University , Montreal, Canada. 3. School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano Bicocca , Milan, Italy. 4. School of Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, Pacific University , Hillsboro, OR, USA. 5. Cardinal Ferrari Centre, S. Stefano Rehabilitation , Fontanellato (PR), Italy. 6. UOC Psicologia, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII , Bergamo, Italy. 7. Unità Operativa di Medicina Riabilitativa, Dipartimento di Neuroscienze, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Modena , Modena, Italy. 8. Scuola di Dottorato in Sanità Pubblica, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca , Milano, Italy. 9. Unità Post-Coma, IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia , Rome, Italy. 10. Severe Brain Injury Department, IRCCS Don Gnocchi Institute , Florence, Italy. 11. Neurology Unit, Santa Maria della Pietà General Hospital , Nola, Italy. 12. Maugeri Scientific and Clinical Institutes, IRCCS, Department of Neurorehabilitation, Institute of Telese Terme , Telese Terme, Italy. 13. Dipartimento di Riabilitazione, Ospedale Sacro Cuore- Don Calabria , Verona, Italy. 14. Laboratorio di Neuropsicologia, Istituto Clinico Quarenghi , Bergamo, Italy. 15. Department of Rehabilitative Medicine, AUSL Piacenza , Piacenza, Italy. 16. Department of Rehabilitation, National Health Service South-Est Tuscany , Grosseto, Italy. 17. Research Centre, Tuscany Rehabilitation Clinic , Montevarchi, Italy. 18. Santo Stefano Riabilitazione, Istituto di Riabilitazione Santo Stefano , Porto Potenza Picena, Italy. 19. Neurology Unit, "A. Manzoni" Hospital , Lecco, Italy. 20. Centro Puzzle , Turin, Italy. 21. Dipartimento di Psicologia, Università di Torino , Turin, Italy. 22. IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Neurorehabilitation Unit , Bologna, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous analyses demonstrated a lack of unidimensionality, item redundancy, and substantial administrative burden for the Brain Injury Rehabilitation Trust Personality Questionnaires (BIRT-PQs). OBJECTIVE: To use Rasch Analysis to calibrate five short-forms of the BIRT-PQs, satisfying the Rasch model requirements. METHODS: BIRT-PQs data from 154 patients with severe Acquired Brain Injury (s-ABI) and their caregivers (total sample = 308) underwent Rasch analysis to examine their internal construct validity and reliability according to the Rasch model. RESULTS: The base Rasch analyses did not show sufficient internal construct validity according to the Rasch model for all five BIRT-PQs. After rescoring 18 items, and deleting 75 of 150 items, adequate internal construct validity was achieved for all five BIRT-PQs short forms (model chi-square p-values ranging from 0.0053 to 0.6675), with reliability values compatible with individual measurements. CONCLUSIONS: After extensive modifications, including a 48% reduction of the item load, we obtained five short forms of the BIRT-PQs satisfying the strict measurement requirements of the Rasch model. The ordinal-to-interval measurement conversion tables allow measuring on the same metric the perception of the neurobehavioral disability for both patients with s-ABI and their caregivers.
BACKGROUND: Previous analyses demonstrated a lack of unidimensionality, item redundancy, and substantial administrative burden for the Brain Injury Rehabilitation Trust Personality Questionnaires (BIRT-PQs). OBJECTIVE: To use Rasch Analysis to calibrate five short-forms of the BIRT-PQs, satisfying the Rasch model requirements. METHODS:BIRT-PQs data from 154 patients with severe Acquired Brain Injury (s-ABI) and their caregivers (total sample = 308) underwent Rasch analysis to examine their internal construct validity and reliability according to the Rasch model. RESULTS: The base Rasch analyses did not show sufficient internal construct validity according to the Rasch model for all five BIRT-PQs. After rescoring 18 items, and deleting 75 of 150 items, adequate internal construct validity was achieved for all five BIRT-PQs short forms (model chi-square p-values ranging from 0.0053 to 0.6675), with reliability values compatible with individual measurements. CONCLUSIONS: After extensive modifications, including a 48% reduction of the item load, we obtained five short forms of the BIRT-PQs satisfying the strict measurement requirements of the Rasch model. The ordinal-to-interval measurement conversion tables allow measuring on the same metric the perception of the neurobehavioral disability for both patients with s-ABI and their caregivers.