Division of Rehabilitation Sciences, School of Health Professions, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX.
Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; Department of Veterans Affairs, Center of Innovation on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Gainesville, FL.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 Mar;99(3):534-541.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.06.022. Epub 2017 Jul 26.
To improve the practical use of the short forms (SFs) developed from the item bank, we compared the measurement precision of the 4- and 8-item SFs generated from a motor item bank composed of the FIM and the Minimum Data Set (MDS).
The FIM-MDS motor item bank allowed scores generated from different instruments to be co-calibrated. The 4- and 8-item SFs were developed based on Rasch analysis procedures. This article compared person strata, ceiling/floor effects, and test SE plots for each administration form and examined 95% confidence interval error bands of anchored person measures with the corresponding SFs. We used 0.3 SE as a criterion to reflect a reliability level of .90.
Veterans' inpatient rehabilitation facilities and community living centers.
Veterans (N=2500) who had both FIM and the MDS data within 6 days during 2008 through 2010.
Not applicable.
Four- and 8-item SFs of FIM, MDS, and FIM-MDS motor item bank.
Six SFs were generated with 4 and 8 items across a range of difficulty levels from the FIM-MDS motor item bank. The three 8-item SFs all had higher correlations with the item bank (r=.82-.95), higher person strata, and less test error than the corresponding 4-item SFs (r=.80-.90). The three 4-item SFs did not meet the criteria of SE <0.3 for any theta values.
Eight-item SFs could improve clinical use of the item bank composed of existing instruments across the continuum of care in veterans. We also found that the number of items, not test specificity, determines the precision of the instrument.
为了提高从条目库中开发的简式量表的实际应用,我们比较了由 FIM 和最小数据集(MDS)组成的运动条目库开发的 4 项和 8 项简式量表的测量精度。
FIM-MDS 运动条目库允许对来自不同仪器的分数进行协校准。4 项和 8 项简式量表是基于 Rasch 分析程序开发的。本文比较了不同管理表单的人员分层、天花板/地板效应和测试 SE 图,并检查了锚定人员测量值与相应简式量表的 95%置信区间误差带。我们使用 0.3 SE 作为标准来反映 0.90 的可靠性水平。
退伍军人住院康复设施和社区生活中心。
2008 年至 2010 年期间,在 6 天内同时具有 FIM 和 MDS 数据的退伍军人(N=2500)。
不适用。
FIM、MDS 和 FIM-MDS 运动条目库的 4 项和 8 项简式量表。
从 FIM-MDS 运动条目库中生成了 6 个具有 4 项和 8 项不同难度级别的简式量表。3 个 8 项简式量表与条目库的相关性均较高(r=.82-.95),人员分层较高,测试误差较小,而相应的 4 项简式量表(r=.80-.90)。3 个 4 项简式量表在任何 theta 值下都不符合 SE<0.3 的标准。
8 项简式量表可以提高由现有仪器组成的条目库在退伍军人整个护理连续体中的临床应用。我们还发现,项目数量而不是测试特异性决定了仪器的精度。