Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11136-017-1637-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The aim of this study is to investigate the psychometrics of the 12 items of an instrument assessing activities of daily living (ADL) using an item response theory model.
A total of 648 adults with physical disabilities and having difficulties in ADLs were retrieved from the 2014 Korean National Survey on People with Disabilities. The psychometric testing included factor analysis, internal consistency, precision, and differential item functioning (DIF) across categories including sex, older age, marital status, and physical impairment area.
The sample had a mean age of 69.7 years old (SD = 13.7). The majority of the sample had lower extremity impairments (62.0%) and had at least 2.1 chronic conditions. The instrument demonstrated unidimensional construct and good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95). The instrument precisely estimated person measures within a wide range of theta values (−2.22 logits < θ < 0.27 logits) with a reliability of 0.9. Only the changing position item demonstrated misfit (χ2 = 36.6, df = 17, p = 0.0038), and the dressing item demonstrated DIF on the impairment type (upper extremity/others, McFadden’s Pseudo R 2 > 5.0%).
Our findings indicate that the dressing item would need to be modified to improve its psychometrics. Overall, the ADL instrument demonstrates good psychometrics, and thus, it may be used as a standardized instrument for measuring disability in rehabilitation contexts. However, the findings are limited to adults with physical disabilities. Future studies should replicate psychometric testing for survey respondents with other disorders and for children.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)11136_2017_1637_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Korean Institute for Health and Social Affairs (2014). National Survey on People with Disabilities.
Kim, H.-O., & Joung, K. H. (2007). A study on the needs of health & community services among the disabled at home in rural areas. Journal of Korean Academy of Community Health Nursing, 18(3), 480–491.
Verbrugge, L. M., & Jette, A. M. (1994). The disablement process. Social Science & Medicine, 38(1), 1–14. CrossRef
Buz, J., & Cortés-Rodríguez, M. (2016). Measurement of the severity of disability in community-dwelling adults and older adults: Interval-level measures for accurate comparisons in large survey data sets. British Medical Journal Open, 6(9), e011842. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011842.
Cook, C. E., Richardson, J. K., Pietrobon, R., Braga, L., Silva, H. M., & Turner, D. (2006). Validation of the NHANES ADL scale in a sample of patients with report of cervical pain: Factor analysis, item response theory analysis, and line item validity. Disability and Rehabilitation, 28(15), 929–935. doi: 10.1080/09638280500404263. CrossRefPubMed
Curtin, L., Mohadjer, L., Dohrmann, S., Montaquila, J., Kruszan-Moran, D., Mirel, L., et al. (2012). The national health and nutrition examination survey: Sample design, 1999–2006. Vital and health statistics. Series 2, Data Evaluation and Methods Research, 155, 1–39.
Won, C. W., Rho, Y. G., Kim, S. Y., Cho, B. R., & Lee, Y. S. (2002). The validity and reliability of Korean Activities of Daily Living (K-ADL) scale. Journal of the Korean Geriatrics Society, 6(2), 98–106.
Won, C. W., Rho, Y. G., SunWoo, D., & Lee, Y. S. (2002). The validity and reliability of Korean Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (K-IADL) scale. Journal of the Korean Geriatrics Society, 6(4), 273–280.
Shin, S.-M., & Chun, J.-S. (2011). A study on donning and doffing independence of the person with disabilities on upper-limbs. Research Journal of the Costume Culture, 19(1), 42–53.
Hambleton, R. K. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory (Measurement methods for the social sciences series). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best test design. Chicago: Mesa Press.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
De Ayala, R. J. (2013). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York: Guilford.
Linacre, J. M. (1998). Detecting multidimensionality: which residual data-type works best? Journal of Outcome Measurement, 2(3), 266–283. PubMed
Velozo, C. A., Kielhofner, G., & Lai, J. S. (1999). The use of Rasch analysis to produce scale-free measurement of functional ability. American Journal Occupational Therapy, 53(1), 83–90. CrossRef
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2015). Mplus. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S22–S31. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.04. CrossRefPubMed
Tabchnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyin & Bacon.
De Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. Methodology in the social sciences. New York: Guilford Press.
Dodd, B. G., Koch, W. R., & De Ayala, R. J. (1989). Operational characteristics of adaptive testing procedures using the graded response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13(2), 129–143. CrossRef
Adams, R. J. (1987). Adaptive testing, information, and the partial credit model. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
Biddle, R. E. (1993). How to set cutoff scores for knowledge tests used in promotion, training, certification, and licensing. Public Personnel Management, 22, 63–79. CrossRef
Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (2012). Differential item functioning. Princeton: Routledge.
Choi, S. W., Gibbons, L. E., & Crane, P. K. (2016). Logistic regression differential item functioning using IRT. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lordif/lordif.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2017.
Cai, L., Thissen, D., & du Toit, S. H. C. (2011). IRTPRO for Windows (21st ed.). Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International.
SAS Institute Inc. (2015). SAS for Windows (94th ed.). Cary: SAS Institute.
Granger, C. V., Hamilton, B. B., Keith, R. A., Zielezny, M., & Sherwin, F. S. (1986). Advances in functional assessment for medical rehabilitation. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 1(3), 59–74. CrossRef
Velozo, C. A., Byers, K. L., Wang, Y. C., & Joseph, B. R. (2007). Translating measures across the continuum of care: using Rasch analysis to create a crosswalk between the Functional Independence Measure and the Minimum Data Set. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 44(3), 467–478. CrossRefPubMed
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2013). Item response theory. London: Psychology Press.
Cabrero-Garcia, J., & Lopez-Pina, J. A. (2008). Aggregated measures of functional disability in a nationally representative sample of disabled people: analysis of dimensionality according to gender and severity of disability. Quality of Life Research, 17(3), 425–436. doi: 10.1007/s11136-008-9313-x. CrossRefPubMed
Linacre, J. (2010). Two perspectives on the application of Rasch models. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 46(2), 309–310. PubMed
Merbitz, C., Morris, J., & Grip, J. C. (1989). Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 70(4), 308–312.
- Item-level psychometrics of the ADL instrument of the Korean National Survey on persons with physical disabilities
Mi Jung Lee
Moon Young Kim
Hae Yean Park
- Springer International Publishing