Prosthetics and orthotics international · 2022
Head-to-head Rasch comparison of the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire-Mobility Section and the Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire 2.0 in Italian lower-limb prosthesis users.
Наблюдательное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Franchignoni Franco, Giordano Andrea, Monticone Marco
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire-Mobility Section (PEQ-MS) and the Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire (PMQ 2.0) are two validated self-report questionnaires assessing mobility in people with lower-limb amputation.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess and compare the psychometric properties of PEQ-MS and PMQ 2.0 in a sample of 100 Italian lower-limb prosthesis users.
METHODS: We conducted a secondary Rasch analysis of data from a prospective single-group observational study, comparing the PEQ-MS and PMQ 2.0 head to head and then cocalibrating them onto a common interval-scaled metric, through common-person equating, to compare their operational range.
RESULTS: The PMQ 2.0 showed good measurement qualities. The PEQ-MS had acceptable psychometric properties, despite some weakness in item selection. Cocalibration of the two questionnaires indicated that they assess the same underlying construct (prosthetic mobility), but PMQ 2.0 items have a wider range of difficulty (by one logit). Finally, we created a nomogram allowing to "cross-walk" between scores of the two questionnaires.
CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of the two questionnaires showed that the PMQ 2.0 has a better measurement performance and larger operational range than the PEQ-MS, making it more suitable for assessing lower-limb prosthesis users with a large range of locomotor abilities, in particular those with higher mobility levels.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess and compare the psychometric properties of PEQ-MS and PMQ 2.0 in a sample of 100 Italian lower-limb prosthesis users.
METHODS: We conducted a secondary Rasch analysis of data from a prospective single-group observational study, comparing the PEQ-MS and PMQ 2.0 head to head and then cocalibrating them onto a common interval-scaled metric, through common-person equating, to compare their operational range.
RESULTS: The PMQ 2.0 showed good measurement qualities. The PEQ-MS had acceptable psychometric properties, despite some weakness in item selection. Cocalibration of the two questionnaires indicated that they assess the same underlying construct (prosthetic mobility), but PMQ 2.0 items have a wider range of difficulty (by one logit). Finally, we created a nomogram allowing to "cross-walk" between scores of the two questionnaires.
CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of the two questionnaires showed that the PMQ 2.0 has a better measurement performance and larger operational range than the PEQ-MS, making it more suitable for assessing lower-limb prosthesis users with a large range of locomotor abilities, in particular those with higher mobility levels.