Keenan Anne-Maree, Redmond Anthony C, Horton Mike, Conaghan Philip G, Tennant Alan
Academic Unit of Musculoskeletal Disease, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Jan;88(1):88-93. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.005.
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.
Rasch analysis of baseline FPI scores from studies conducted during the development of the instrument.
A community-based and a hospital-based study, conducted at 2 institutions.
Measures were obtained from 143 participants (98 men, 45 women; age range, 8-65y).
Not applicable.
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.
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.
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.
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。
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。
在2个机构进行的一项基于社区和一项基于医院的研究。
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。
不适用。
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。
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。
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。