Suppr超能文献

足部姿势指数:一种新型足部特异性结局指标的拉施分析

The Foot Posture Index: Rasch analysis of a novel, foot-specific outcome measure.

作者信息

Keenan Anne-Maree, Redmond Anthony C, Horton Mike, Conaghan Philip G, Tennant Alan

机构信息

Academic Unit of Musculoskeletal Disease, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

出版信息

Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Jan;88(1):88-93. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.005.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the internal construct validity of a clinician-assessed measure of foot position, the Foot Posture Index (FPI), versions FPI-8 and FPI-6.

DESIGN

Rasch analysis of baseline FPI scores from studies conducted during the development of the instrument.

SETTING

A community-based and a hospital-based study, conducted at 2 institutions.

PARTICIPANTS

Measures were obtained from 143 participants (98 men, 45 women; age range, 8-65y).

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rasch analysis was undertaken using RUMM2020 software in order to evaluate the following properties of the FPI: unidimensionality of each item included in the FPI, the differential item functioning (DIF) of each item, and item and person separation indices.

RESULTS

In the developmental draft of the instrument, the 8-item FPI-8 showed some misfit to the Rasch model (chi(16)(2) test=27.63, P=.03), indicating lack of unidimensionality. Two items were identified as problematic in the Rasch modeling: Achilles' tendon insertion (Helbing's sign), which showed illogical response ordering and "congruence of the lateral border of the foot," which showed misfit, indicating that this item may be measuring a different construct (chi(2)(2) test=15.35, P<.01). All FPI-8 items showed an absence of DIF, and the person separation index (PSI) was good (PSI=.88). The revised FPI-6, which does not include the 2 problematic items, showed unidimensionality (chi(12)(2) test=11.49, P=.49), indicating a good overall fit to the model, and improvement over the preliminary version. With the removal of the 2 problematic items, there were no disordered thresholds; all items remained DIF free and all individual items displayed a good fit to the model. The person-separation index for the FPI was similar for both the 8-item (FPI-8=.880) and 6-item (FPI-6=.884) versions.

CONCLUSIONS

The original FPI-8 showed significant mismatching to the model. The 2 items in the FPI-8 that were identified as problematic in clinical validation studies were also found to be contributing to the lack of fit to the Rasch model. The finalized 6-item instrument showed good metric properties, including good individual item fit and good overall fit to the model, along with a lack of differential item functioning. This analysis provides further evidence for the validity of the FPI-6 as a clinical instrument for use in screening studies and shows that it has the potential to be analyzed using parametric strategies.

摘要

目的

研究临床医生评估的足部姿势测量工具——足部姿势指数(FPI)的FPI - 8版和FPI - 6版的内部结构效度。

设计

对该工具开发过程中进行的研究的基线FPI评分进行拉施分析。

设置

在2个机构进行的一项基于社区和一项基于医院的研究。

参与者

从143名参与者(98名男性,45名女性;年龄范围8 - 65岁)获取测量数据。

干预措施

不适用。

主要观察指标

使用RUMM2020软件进行拉施分析,以评估FPI的以下特性:FPI中每个项目的单维性、每个项目的差异项目功能(DIF)以及项目和人员分离指数。

结果

在该工具的开发草案中,8项的FPI - 8与拉施模型存在一些不匹配(卡方(16)(2)检验 = 27.63,P = 0.03),表明缺乏单维性。在拉施建模中确定有两个项目存在问题:跟腱插入点(赫尔宾征),显示出不合逻辑的反应顺序,以及“足外侧缘的一致性”,显示出不匹配,表明该项目可能测量的是不同的结构(卡方(2)(2)检验 = 15.35,P < 0.01)。所有FPI - 8项目均未显示出DIF,且人员分离指数(PSI)良好(PSI = 0.88)。修订后的FPI - 6不包括这两个有问题的项目,显示出单维性(卡方(12)(2)检验 = 11.49,P = 0.49),表明与模型总体拟合良好,且比初步版本有所改进。去除这两个有问题的项目后,没有无序的阈值;所有项目仍无DIF,且所有单个项目与模型拟合良好。FPI的人员分离指数在8项版(FPI - 8 = 0.880)和6项版(FPI - 6 = 0.884)中相似。

结论

最初的FPI - 8与模型存在显著不匹配。在临床验证研究中被确定有问题的FPI - 8中的两个项目,也被发现导致了与拉施模型拟合不佳。最终确定的6项工具显示出良好的度量特性,包括良好的单个项目拟合和与模型的良好总体拟合,以及缺乏差异项目功能。该分析为FPI - 6作为用于筛查研究的临床工具的效度提供了进一步证据,并表明它有可能使用参数策略进行分析。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验