Work (Reading, Mass.) · 2013
Psychometric properties of the Oswestry disability index: Rasch analysis of responses in a work-disabled population.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lochhead Lois E, MacMillan Peter D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Oswestry disability index (ODI) is the most widely used measure of perceived disability for low back conditions. It has been adopted without adaptation in functional capacity evaluation (FCE). Rigorous testing of the ODI with modern psychometric methods, in this setting, is warranted.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the psychometric properties of the ODI in FCE: unidimensionality; differential item functioning; item coverage and to identify poorly functioning items, allowing for improvement of these items and recalibration of the scale.
METHODS: Rasch analysis, specifically Masters' partial credit model, was conducted on data.
PARTICIPANTS: 133 work-disabled individuals presenting for FCE in northern British Columbia, Canada.
RESULTS: All items had one poorly functioning option. Items were rescaled from six categories to five, improving the psychometric properties of the ODI as a unidimensional (disability due to back pain) scale. Item difficulty range is sufficient for a population with mild to severe disability.
CONCLUSION: Although two of the ten ODI items functioned marginally unsatisfactorily in the unrevised state, the 5-option revised ODI appears superior. Use in clinical settings across a broad spectrum of disability levels could help establish its psychometric properties. Health professionals should be aware that the ODI may perform differently depending on client population.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the psychometric properties of the ODI in FCE: unidimensionality; differential item functioning; item coverage and to identify poorly functioning items, allowing for improvement of these items and recalibration of the scale.
METHODS: Rasch analysis, specifically Masters' partial credit model, was conducted on data.
PARTICIPANTS: 133 work-disabled individuals presenting for FCE in northern British Columbia, Canada.
RESULTS: All items had one poorly functioning option. Items were rescaled from six categories to five, improving the psychometric properties of the ODI as a unidimensional (disability due to back pain) scale. Item difficulty range is sufficient for a population with mild to severe disability.
CONCLUSION: Although two of the ten ODI items functioned marginally unsatisfactorily in the unrevised state, the 5-option revised ODI appears superior. Use in clinical settings across a broad spectrum of disability levels could help establish its psychometric properties. Health professionals should be aware that the ODI may perform differently depending on client population.