Validation of a mobility item bank for older patients in primary care

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Abilio Reig-Ferrer³  Lorena González-Llopis¹  María José Cabañero-Martínez²  Carmen Luz Muñoz-Mendoza²  Juan Diego Ramos-Pichardo²  Julio Cabrero-García² 

[1] Department of Health, Alcoy, Alicante, Spain;Department of Nursing, University of Alicante, Ctra. San Vicente s/n, San Vicente del Raspeig, Alicante, 03015, Spain;Department of Health Psychology, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain

关键词: Item bank;    Primary care;    Older people;    Gender differences;    Rasch analysis;    Differential item functioning;    Mobility;   

Others  :  824811
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-10-147

 received in 2012-08-19, accepted in 2012-11-29,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

To develop and validate an item bank to measure mobility in older people in primary care and to analyse differential item functioning (DIF) and differential bundle functioning (DBF) by sex.

Methods

A pool of 48 mobility items was administered by interview to 593 older people attending primary health care practices. The pool contained four domains based on the International Classification of Functioning: changing and maintaining body position, carrying, lifting and pushing, walking and going up and down stairs.

Results

The Late Life Mobility item bank consisted of 35 items, and measured with a reliability of 0.90 or more across the full spectrum of mobility, except at the higher end of better functioning. No evidence was found of non-uniform DIF but uniform DIF was observed, mainly for items in the changing and maintaining body position and carrying, lifting and pushing domains. The walking domain did not display DBF, but the other three domains did, principally the carrying, lifting and pushing items.

Conclusions

During the design and validation of an item bank to measure mobility in older people, we found that strength (carrying, lifting and pushing) items formed a secondary dimension that produced DBF. More research is needed to determine how best to include strength items in a mobility measure, or whether it would be more appropriate to design separate measures for each construct.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Cabrero-Garcia et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Smith KW, Avis NE, Assmann SF: Distinguishing between quality of life and health status in quality of life research: a meta-analysis. Qual Life Res 1999, 8:447-459.
• [2]Bruce B, Fries JF: The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire: dimensions and practical applications HAQ. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003, 1:20. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]Haley SM, McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr: Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10): I. Unidimensionality and reproducibility of the Rasch item scale. J Clin Epidemiol 1994, 47:671-684.
• [4]Reeve BB, Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Cook KF, Crane PK, Teresi JA, Revicki DA, Weiss DJ, Hambleton RK, Liu H, et al.: Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care 2007, 45(Suppl 1):S22-S31.
• [5]Fries JF, Bruce B, Bjorner JB, Rose M: More relevant, precise, and efficient items for assessment of physical function and disability: moving beyond the classic instruments. Ann Rheum Dis 2006, 65(Suppl 3):iii16-iii21.
• [6]Jette AM, Haley SM, Tao W, Ni P, Moed R, Meyers D, Zurek M: Prospective evaluation of the AM-PAC-CAT in outpatient rehabilitation settings. Phys Ther 2007, 87:385-398.
• [7]DeWitt EM, Stucky BD, Thissen D, Irwin DE, Langer M, Varni JW, Lai JS, Yeatts KB, Dewalt DA: Construction of the eight-item patient-reported outcomes measurement information system pediatric physical function scales: built using item response theory. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64:794-804.
• [8]Rose M, Bjorner JB, Becker J, Fries JF, Ware JE: Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:17-33.
• [9]Hart DL, Wang YC, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE: Computerized adaptive test for patients with foot or ankle impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. Qual Life Res 2008, 17:1081-1091.
• [10]Holman R, Weisscher N, Glas CA, Dijkgraaf MG, Vermeulen M, de Haan RJ, Lindeboom R: The Academic Medical Center Linear Disability Score (ALDS) item bank: item response theory analysis in a mixed patient population. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005, 3:83. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Haley SM, Jette AM, Coster WJ, Kooyoomijan JT, Levenson S, Heeren T, Ashba J: Late Life Function and Disability Instrument: II. Development and evaluation of the function component. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2002, 57:M217-M222.
• [12]Jette AM, Haley SM, Ni P, Olarsch S, Moed R: Creating a computer adaptive test version of the late-life function and disability instrument. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2008, 63:1246-1256.
• [13]Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L: Assessing the building blocks of function: utilizing measures of functional limitation. Am J Prev Med 2003, 25(Suppl 2):112-121.
• [14]Gill TM: Assessment of function and disability in longitudinal studies. J Am Geriatr Soc 2010, 58(Suppl 2):S308-S312.
• [15]World Health Organization: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva; 2001.
• [16]Leveille SG, Penninx BW, Melzer D, Izmirlian G, Guralnik JM: Sex differences in the prevalence of mobility disability in old age: the dynamics of incidence, recovery, and mortality. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2000, 55:S41-S50.
• [17]Freedman VA, Martin LG: Understanding trends in functional limitations among older Americans. Am J Public Health 1998, 88:1457-1462.
• [18]Murtagh KN, Hubert HB: Gender differences in physical disability among an elderly cohort. Am J Public Health 2004, 94:1406-1411.
• [19]Wray LA, Blaum CS: Explaining the role of sex on disability: a population-based study. Gerontologist 2001, 41:499-510.
• [20]Simonsick EM, Newman AB, Nevitt MC, Kritchevsky SB, Ferrucci L, Guralnik JM, Harris T, ABC Health Study Group: Measuring higher level physical function in well-functioning older adults: expanding familiar approaches in the health ABC study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001, 56:M644-M649.
• [21]Kuh D, Bassey EJ, Butterworth S, Hardy R, Wadsworth ME, Musculoskeletal Study Team: Grip strength, postural control, and functional leg power in a representative cohort of British men and women: associations with physical activity, health status, and socioeconomic conditions. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2005, 60:224-231.
• [22]Sainio P, Koskinen S, Heliövaara M, Martelin T, Härkänen T, Hurri H, Miilunpalo S, Aromaa A: Self-reported and test-based mobility limitations in a representative sample of Finns aged 30+. Scand J Public Health 2006, 34:378-386.
• [23]Teresi JA, Ocepek-Welikson K, Kleinman M, Cook KF, Crane PK, Gibbons LE, Morales LS, Orlando-Edelen M, Cella D: Evaluating measurement equivalence using the item response theory log-likelihood ratio (IRTLR) method to assess differential item functioning (DIF): applications (with illustrations) to measures of physical functioning ability and general distress. Qual Life Res 2007, 16(Suppl 1):43-68.
• [24]Petersen MA, Groenvold M, Aaronson NK, Chie WC, Conroy T, Costantini A, Fayers P, Helbostad J, Holzner B, Kaasa S, et al.: Development of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) for the EORTC QLQ-C30 physical functioning dimension. Qual Life Res 2011, 20:479-490.
• [25]Langer MM, Hill CD, Thissen D, Burwinkle TM, Varni JW, Dewalt DA: Item response theory detected differential item functioning between healthy and ill children in quality-of-life measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:268-276.
• [26]Scott NW, Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bottomley A, de Graeff A, Groenvold M, Gundy C, Koller M, Petersen MA, Sprangers MA, et al.: Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses of health-related quality of life instruments using logistic regression. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010, 8:81.
• [27]Roussos L, Stout W: A multidimensionality-based DIF analysis paradigm. Appl Psychol Meas 1996, 20:355-371.
• [28]Pfeiffer E: A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1975, 23:433-441.
• [29]Martin M, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Ware JE Jr, Maclean R, Li T: Item response theory methods can improve the measurement of physical function by combining the modified health assessment questionnaire and the SF-36 physical function scale. Qual Life Res 2007, 16:647-660.
• [30]Working Group on Functional Outcome Measures for Clinical Trials: Functional outcomes for clinical trials in frail older persons: time to be moving. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2008, 63:160-164.
• [31]Sheik JI, Yesavage JA: Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). Recent evidence and development of shorter version. Clin Gerontol 1986, 5:173.
• [32]Fried LP, Guralnik JM: Disability in older adults: evidence regarding significance, etiology, and risk. J Am Geriatr Soc 1997, 45:92-100.
• [33]Fried LP, Bandeen-Roche K, Chaves PH, Johnson BA: Preclinical mobility disability predicts incident mobility disability in older women. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2000, 55:M43-M52.
• [34]Andrich D: A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 1978, 43:561-573.
• [35]Groenvold M, Petersen MA: The role and use of the diferential item functioning (DIF) analysis of quality of life data from clinical trials. In Assessing quality of life in clinical trials. Edited by Fayers P, Hays R. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005:195-208.
• [36]Ramsay JO: Testgraf. A program for the graphical analysis of multiple choice test and questionnaire data. [computer software]. Montreal: Department of Psychology, McGill University; 2000.
• [37]Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D, Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D: LISREL [computer software]. Version 8.80. Chicago: Scientific Software International; 2006.
• [38]Reise SP, Morizot J, Hays RD: The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Qual Life Res 2007, 16(Suppl 1):31.
• [39]Hu L, Bentler PM: Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999, 6:1-55.
• [40]Roussos LA, Stout W: Differential item functioning analysis: detecting DIF item and testing DIF hipothesis. In The Sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences. Edited by Kaplan D. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc; 2004:107-115.
• [41]William Stout Institute for Measurement: Dimensionality-based DIF analysis package: SIBTEST, Poly-SIBTEST, Crossing SIBTEST, DIFSIM, DIFCOMP [computer software]. Version 1.2. Champaign, IL: Assessment Corporation; 2005.
• [42]Chang H, Mazzeo J, Roussos L: Detecting DIF for Polytomously Scored Items: An Adaptation of the SIBTEST Procedure. J Educ Meas 1996, 33:333-353.
• [43]Li H, Stout W: A new procedure for detection of crossing DIF. Psychometrika 2010, 61:647-677.
• [44]Bond TG, Fox CM: Applying the Rasch Model: fundamental measurement in the Human Sciences. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007.
• [45]Lai JS, Cella D, Chang CH, Bode RK, Heinemann AW: Item banking to improve, shorten and computerize self-reported fatigue: an illustration of steps to create a core item bank from the FACIT-Fatigue Scale. Qual Life Res 2003, 12:485-501.
• [46]Hambleton R, Swaminathn H, Rogers HJ: Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1991.
• [47]Smith EV: Evidence for the reliability of measures and validity of measure interpretation: a Rasch measurement perspective. In Introduction to Rasch measurement. Edited by Smith EV, Smith RM. Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press; 2004:93-122.
• [48]Bode RK: Partial credit model and pivot anchoring. In Introduction to Rasch measurement. Edited by Smith EV, Smith RM. Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press; 2004:279-295.
• [49]Linacre JM: Winsteps (version 3.63.02) [Computer Software]. Chicago: Winsteps.com; 2010.
• [50]López-García E, Banegas JR, Pérez-Regadera AG, Gutiérrez-Fisac JL, Alonso J, Rodríguez-Artalejo F: Valores de referencia de la versión española del cuestionario de salud SF-36 en población adulta de más de 60 años. Med Clin (Barc) 2003, 120:568-573.
• [51]Louie GH, Ward MM: Sex disparities in self-reported physical functioning: true differences, reporting bias, or incomplete adjustment for confounding? J Am Geriatr Soc 2010, 58:1117-1122.
• [52]Sarkisian CA, Gruenewald TL, Boscardin WJ, Seeman TE: Preliminary evidence for subdimensions of geriatric frailty: the MacArthur study of successful aging. J Am Geriatr Soc 2008, 56:2292-2297.
• [53]Sourial N, Wolfson C, Bergman H, Zhu B, Karunananthan S, Quail J, Fletcher J, Weiss D, Bandeen-Roche K, Béland F: A correspondence analysis revealed frailty deficits aggregate and are multidimensional. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63:647-654.
• [54]Hicks GE, Shardell M, Alley DE, Miller RR, Bandinelli D, Guralnik JM, Lauretani F, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L: Absolute strength and loss of strength as predictors of mobility decline in older adults: the InCHIANTI study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2012, 67:66-73.
• [55]Wolfe F, Michaud K, Pincus T: Development and validation of the health assessment questionnaire II: a revised version of the health assessment questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum 2004, 50:3296-3305.
• [56]Bruce B, Fries JF, Ambrosini D, Lingala B, Gandek B, Rose M, Ware JE Jr: Better assessment of physical function: item improvement is neglected but essential. Arthritis Res Ther 2009, 11:R191. BioMed Central Full Text
• [57]Chachamovich E, Fleck MP, Power M: Literacy affected ability to adequately discriminate among categories in multipoint Likert Scales. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62:37-46.