Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Konkret geht es um den Diabetes-Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen oder Risiken, die Herzinsuffizienz sowie die kardiovaskuläre Primär- und Sekundärprävention. Sind Sie hier schon auf dem neuesten Stand? Unsere Experten beleuchten, wo und warum das bisherige Procedere geändert werden soll und was in der Praxis sinnvoll ist. Holen Sie sich Ihr Update und 2 CME-Punkte beim MMW-Webinar am 24. April von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Quality of Life Research
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research 10/2017

06.07.2017

Item-level psychometrics of the ADL instrument of the Korean National Survey on persons with physical disabilities

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 10/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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%).

Conclusions

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.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Korean Institute for Health and Social Affairs (2014). National Survey on People with Disabilities.
2.
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.
3.
Osborn, R., Moulds, D., Squires, D., Doty, M. M., & Anderson, C. (2014). International survey of older adults finds shortcomings in access, coordination, and patient-centered care. Health Affairs, 33(12), 2247–2255. doi:10.​1377/​hlthaff.​2014.​0947.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Verbrugge, L. M., & Jette, A. M. (1994). The disablement process. Social Science & Medicine, 38(1), 1–14.CrossRef
5.
6.
7.
Andersen, C. K., Wittrup-Jensen, K. U., Lolk, A., Andersen, K., & Kragh-Sørensen, P. (2004). Ability to perform activities of daily living is the main factor affecting quality of life in patients with dementia. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2(1), 1–7. doi:10.​1186/​1477-7525-2-52.CrossRef
8.
Stineman, M. G., & Granger, C. V. (1997). A modular case-mix classification system for medical rehabilitation illustrated. Health Care Financing Review, 19(1), 87–103.PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Carter, G. M., Relies, D. A., Ridgeway, G. K., & Rimes, C. M. (2003). Measuring function for medicare inpatient rehabilitation payment. Health Care Financing Review, 24(3), 25–44.PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Mackenbach, J. P., Simon, J. G., Looman, C. W., & Joung, I. M. (2002). Self-assessed health and mortality: Could psychosocial factors explain the association? International Journal of Epidemiology, 31(6), 1162–1168. doi:10.​1093/​ije/​31.​6.​1162.CrossRefPubMed
11.
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.
12.
Cook, C., & Pietrobon, R. (2006). Item analysis of the NHANES ADL instrument in a sample of patients reporting frequent severe headaches. Physiotherapy Research International, 11(2), 84–92. doi:10.​1002/​pri.​324.CrossRefPubMed
13.
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/​0963828050040426​3.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Cieza, A., Oberhauser, C., Bickenbach, J., Jones, R. N., Üstün, T. B., Kostanjsek, N., et al. (2015). The English are healthier than the Americans: Really? International Journal of Epidemiology, 44(1), 229–238. doi:10.​1093/​ije/​dyu182.CrossRefPubMed
15.
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.
16.
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.
17.
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.
18.
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.
19.
Hambleton, R. K. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory (Measurement methods for the social sciences series). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
20.
Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best test design. Chicago: Mesa Press.
21.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
22.
De Ayala, R. J. (2013). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York: Guilford.
23.
Linacre, J. M. (1998). Detecting multidimensionality: which residual data-type works best? Journal of Outcome Measurement, 2(3), 266–283.PubMed
24.
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
25.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2015). Mplus. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
26.
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
27.
Tabchnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyin & Bacon.
28.
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), II28.PubMedPubMedCentral
29.
De Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. Methodology in the social sciences. New York: Guilford Press.
30.
Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2003). Further investigation of the performance of S − X 2: An item fit index for use with dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(4), 289–298. doi:10.​1177/​0146621603027004​004.CrossRef
31.
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
32.
Adams, R. J. (1987). Adaptive testing, information, and the partial credit model. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
33.
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
34.
McHorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995). Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research, 4(4), 293–307.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (2012). Differential item functioning. Princeton: Routledge.
36.
37.
Choi, S. W., Gibbons, L. E., & Crane, P. K. (2011). lordif: An R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and monte carlo simulations. Journal of Statistical Software, 39(8), 1–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Cai, L., Thissen, D., & du Toit, S. H. C. (2011). IRTPRO for Windows (21st ed.). Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International.
39.
SAS Institute Inc. (2015). SAS for Windows (94th ed.). Cary: SAS Institute.
40.
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
41.
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
42.
Granger, C. V., Hamilton, B. B., Linacre, J. M., Heinemann, A. W., & Wright, B. D. (1993). Performance profiles of the functional independence measure. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 72(2), 84–89.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2013). Item response theory. London: Psychology Press.
44.
Austin, P. C., Escobar, M., & Kopec, J. A. (2000). The use of the Tobit model for analyzing measures of health status. Quality of Life Research, 9(8), 901–910.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Spector, W. D., & Fleishman, J. A. (1998). Combining activities of daily living with instrumental activities of daily living to measure functional disability. Journals of Gerontology, 53(1), S46–S57.CrossRefPubMed
46.
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
47.
Linacre, J. (2010). Two perspectives on the application of Rasch models. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 46(2), 309–310.PubMed
48.
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.
Metadaten
Titel
Item-level psychometrics of the ADL instrument of the Korean National Survey on persons with physical disabilities
Publikationsdatum
06.07.2017
Erschienen in
Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 10/2017
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1637-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2017

Quality of Life Research 10/2017 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Associations between illness duration and health-related quality of life in specified mental and physical chronic health conditions: results from a population-based survey

OriginalPaper

Factors associated with sexual quality of life among midlife women in Serbia

OriginalPaper

Quality of life among adolescents living in residential youth care: do domain-specific self-esteem and psychopathology contribute?

OriginalPaper

Relationship between subjective and actigraphy-measured sleep in 237 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

OriginalPaper

Development of the life impact burn recovery evaluation (LIBRE) profile: assessing burn survivors’ social participation

OriginalPaper

Comparison of good days and sick days of school-age children with cancer reflected through their drawings