Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Measuring the impact burn injuries have on social participation is integral to understanding and improving survivors’ quality of life, yet there are no existing instruments that comprehensively measure the social participation of burn survivors. This project aimed to develop the Life Impact Burn Recovery Evaluation Profile (LIBRE), a patient-reported multidimensional assessment for understanding the social participation after burn injuries.
192 questions representing multiple social participation areas were administered to a convenience sample of 601 burn survivors. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to identify the underlying structure of the data. Using item response theory methods, a Graded Response Model was applied for each identified sub-domain. The resultant multidimensional LIBRE Profile can be administered via Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) or fixed short forms.
The study sample included 54.7% women with a mean age of 44.6 (SD 15.9) years. The average time since burn injury was 15.4 years (0–74 years) and the average total body surface area burned was 40% (1–97%). The CFA indicated acceptable fit statistics (CFI range 0.913–0.977, TLI range 0.904–0.974, RMSEA range 0.06–0.096). The six unidimensional scales were named: relationships with family and friends, social interactions, social activities, work and employment, romantic relationships, and sexual relationships. The marginal reliability of the full item bank and CATs ranged from 0.84 to 0.93, with ceiling effects less than 15% for all scales.
The LIBRE Profile is a promising new measure of social participation following a burn injury that enables burn survivors and their care providers to measure social participation.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Brigham, P. A., & McLoughlin, E. (1996). Burn incidence and medical care use in the united states: Estimates, trends, and data sources. Journal of Burn Care & Research,17(2), 95–107. CrossRef
Esselman, P. C. (2011). Community integration outcome after burn injury. Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Clinics of North America,22(2), 351–356. CrossRef
Helm, P. A., & Walker, S. C. (1992). Return to work after burn injury. Journal of Burn Care & Research,13(1), 53–57. CrossRef
Brych, S., Engrav, L., Rivara, F. P., et al. (2001). Time off work and return to work rates after burns: Systematic review of the literature and a large two-center series. Journal of Burn Care & Research,22(6), 401–405. CrossRef
Terri Lynn, G., & Bianchi, F. N. P. (1997). Aspects of sexuality after burn injury: Outcomes in men. Journal of Burn Care & Research,18(2), 182–186. CrossRef
Ryan, C. M., Schneider, J. C., Kazis, L. E., et al. (2013). Benchmarks for multidimensional recovery after burn injury in young adults: The development, validation, and testing of the american burn association/shriners hospitals for children young adult burn outcome questionnaire. Journal of Burn Care & Research,34(3), e121–e142. doi: 10.1097/BCR.0b013e31827e7ecf. CrossRef
Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., Dewey, J. E., & Gandek, B. (2000). SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Lincoln: Quality Metric Inc.
Cook, K., Kallen, M., Cella, D., Crane, P., Eldadah, B., Hays, R. (2014) The patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) perspective on: universally- relevant vs.disease- attributed scales.
WHO I, World Health Organization. (2007). International classification of functioning. Disability and Health (ICF), endorsed by all. 191.
Marino, M., Soley-Bori, M., Jette, A. M., et al. (2015). Development of a conceptual framework to measure the social impact of Burns. Journal of Burn Care and Research,37(6), e569–e578. CrossRef
Marino, M., Soley-Bori, M., Jette, A. M., et al. (2016). Measuring the social impact of burns on survivors: Item development according to a validated conceptual framework. Journal of Burn Care and Research,38(1), e377–e383. CrossRef
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,6(1), 1–55. CrossRef
Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods,1(2), 130. CrossRef
Chen, F., Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J., & Paxton, P. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research,36(4), 462–494. CrossRef
Langer, M.M. (2008). A reexamination of Lord’s Wald test for differential item functioning using item response theory and modern error estimation.
Woods, C. M., Cai, L., & Wang, M. (2013). The langer-improved wald test for DIF testing with multiple groups evaluation and comparison to two-group IRT. Educational and Psychological Measurement,73(3), 532–547. CrossRef
Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Medical Care,38(9 Suppl II), 28–42.
Norris, J. M. (2001). Computer-adaptive testing: A primer. Language Learning & Technology,5(2), 23–27.
Cai, L., Du Toit, S., & Thissen, D. (2011). IRTPRO: Flexible, multidimensional, multiple categorical IRT modeling [computer software]. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Davidson, T. N., Bowden, M. L., Tholen, D., James, M. H., & Feller, I. (1981). Social support and post-burn adjustment. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,62(6), 274–278. PubMed
- Development of the life impact burn recovery evaluation (LIBRE) profile: assessing burn survivors’ social participation
Lewis E. Kazis
Marina Soley Bori
Colleen M. Ryan
Jeff C. Schneider
Alan M. Jette
- Springer International Publishing