Literature DB >> 9179104

Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning Scale (PF-10): II. Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods.

C A McHorney1, S M Haley, J E Ware.   

Abstract

This study examined the relative precision (RP) of two methods of scoring the 10-item Physical Functioning Scale (PF-10) from a large sample of patients (n = 3445) of the Medical Outcomes Study. Based on a Likert scaling model, the PF-10 summated scoring method was compared with a Rasch Item Response Theory (IRT) scaling model in which raw scores were transformed into a latent trait variable of physical functioning. Potential differences between scoring methods were hypothesized to be attributed to: (1) the logarithmic nature of the Rasch transformation; (2) the unevenness of the PF-10 item distributions; and (3) reduction of within-group variance. RP ratios favored the Rasch model in discriminating between patients who differed in disease severity. The Rasch and Likert scoring models performed similarly for tests involving sensitivity to change over a two-year follow-up period. In all comparisons, differences between methods were most apparent in clinical groups whose scores most approximated the extremes of the score distribution. Further research is necessary to test for differences between scoring models in discrimination and sensitivity to change among clinical groups whose scores are sufficiently spread across the continuum of physical functioning, in particular patients with either very high or low physical functioning. The Rasch model of scoring may have important implications for the clinical interpretation of individual scores at all ranges of the scale.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9179104     DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00424-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  43 in total

1.  A global measure of physical functioning: psychometric properties.

Authors:  T Sørlie; H C Sexton; R Busund; D Sørlie
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century.

Authors:  R D Hays; L S Morales; S P Reise
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Longitudinal evaluation of the SF-36 quality of life questionnaire in patients with kidney stones.

Authors:  Chester J Donnally; Amit Gupta; Karim Bensalah; Altug Tuncel; Jay Raman; Margaret S Pearle; Yair Lotan
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2010-10-06

Review 4.  What is the role of NSAIDs in pre-emptive analgesia?

Authors:  E Andrew Ochroch; Issam A Mardini; Allan Gottschalk
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 9.546

5.  A comparison of Rasch with Likert scoring to discriminate between patients' evaluations of total hip replacement surgery.

Authors:  R Fitzpatrick; J M Norquist; C Jenkinson; B C Reeves; R W Morris; D W Murray; P J Gregg
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Evaluation of the DSM-IV and ICD-10 criteria for depressive disorders in a community population in Japan using item response theory.

Authors:  Mari Saito; Noboru Iwata; Norito Kawakami; Yutaka Matsuyama; Yutaka Ono; Yoshibumi Nakane; Yoshikazu Nakamura; Hisateru Tachimori; Hidenori Uda; Hideyuki Nakane; Makoto Watanabe; Yoichi Naganuma; Toshiaki A Furukawa; Yukihiro Hata; Masayo Kobayashi; Yuko Miyake; Tadashi Takeshima; Takehiko Kikkawa
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 4.035

7.  Measurement qualities of a self-report and therapist-scored functional capacity instrument based on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.

Authors:  Craig A Velozo; Bongsam Choi; Sheryl Eckberg Zylstra; Rochelle Santopoalo
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2006-03

8.  A method to provide a more efficient and reliable measure of self-report physical work capacity for patients with spinal pain.

Authors:  Leonard Matheson; John Mayer; Vert Mooney; Andrew Sarkin; Theodore Dreisinger; Joe Verna; Scott Leggett
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2007-11-20

Review 9.  Selecting Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to Contribute to Primary Care Performance Measurement: a Mixed Methods Approach.

Authors:  San Keller; Sydney Dy; Renee Wilson; Vadim Dukhanin; Claire Snyder; Albert Wu
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  The responsiveness of headache impact scales scored using 'classical' and 'modern' psychometric methods: a re-analysis of three clinical trials.

Authors:  M Kosinski; J B Bjorner; J E Ware; A Batenhorst; R K Cady
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.