School of Liberal Arts, Georgia Gwinnett College, Lawrenceville, Georgia; Crawford Research Institute, Shepherd Center, Atlanta, Georgia.
Center for Rehabilitation Outcomes Research, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020 Sep;101(9):1570-1579. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2020.05.012. Epub 2020 Jun 1.
To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Spinal Cord Injury Spasticity Evaluation Tool (SCI-SET) and Patient-Reported Impact of Spasticity Measure (PRISM) using Rasch analysis to optimize their validity and efficiency.
Rasch analysis of the SCI-SET and PRISM represents a secondary analysis of data collected as part of a collaborative research project of the SCI Model Systems Centers. The overall survey was organized into 4 sections: (1) participant demographics and injury characteristics, (2) participant experiences of spasticity, (3) SCI-SET, and (4) PRISM. Participants were recruited from the community via multiple avenues. Data were collected and managed via an online survey tool using a secure web-based data management application.
Participating Spinal Cord Injury Model Systems Centers.
Most participants (N=1239) had lived with their injury for more than 2 years and used a wheelchair as their primary mode of mobility. The majority of the sample (58%) sustained cervical injuries.
None.
SCI-SET and PRISM.
The SCI-SET demonstrated strong measurement properties with acceptably high reliability and point-measure correlations and no evidence of multidimensionality. However, respondents underused some rating scale categories. Analyses of the PRISM demonstrated 3 distinct subscales relating to the physical, psychological, and social influences of spasticity; respondents underused some rating scale categories. Combining underused rating scale categories for both spasticity instruments resulted in increased reliability and reduced respondent burden compared with the original versions. Both the Modified SCI-SET (person separation reliability=0.93) and Modified PRISM (person separation reliability=0.85, 0.89, 0.83 for physical, psychological, and social subscores, respectively) display strong measurement properties.
Measurement properties of the SCI-SET and PRISM improved from use of Rasch model methods. The SCI-SET required minor revisions, whereas the PRISM required definition of subscores. Both modified spasticity measures demonstrated adequate psychometric properties, and correlations among the modified measures were high, providing evidence of convergent validity. We recommend use of the Modified SCI-SET and Modified PRISM measures in future studies.
使用 Rasch 分析评估脊髓损伤痉挛评估工具(SCI-SET)和患者报告的痉挛影响量表(PRISM)的心理计量学特性,以优化其有效性和效率。
SCI-SET 和 PRISM 的 Rasch 分析代表了脊髓损伤模型系统中心合作研究项目数据的二次分析。整个调查分为 4 个部分:(1)参与者的人口统计学和损伤特征,(2)参与者的痉挛体验,(3)SCI-SET,和(4)PRISM。参与者通过多种途径从社区招募。数据通过在线调查工具收集和管理,使用安全的基于网络的数据管理应用程序。
参与脊髓损伤模型系统中心。
大多数参与者(N=1239)在受伤后生活了 2 年以上,使用轮椅作为主要移动方式。样本的大多数(58%)为颈椎损伤。
无。
SCI-SET 和 PRISM。
SCI-SET 表现出良好的测量特性,可靠性高,点测相关性高,无多维性证据。然而,受访者对一些评分量表类别使用不足。对 PRISM 的分析表明,有 3 个与痉挛的身体、心理和社会影响相关的不同子量表;受访者对一些评分量表类别使用不足。与原始版本相比,将两个痉挛仪器的未充分使用的评分量表类别结合起来,可提高可靠性并减轻受访者的负担。改良后的 SCI-SET(个体分离可靠性=0.93)和改良后的 PRISM(个体分离可靠性=0.85、0.89、0.83,分别为身体、心理和社会子量表)显示出良好的测量特性。
使用 Rasch 模型方法改进了 SCI-SET 和 PRISM 的测量特性。SCI-SET 需要进行微小的修订,而 PRISM 需要定义子量表。这两个改良的痉挛测量工具都具有足够的心理计量学特性,且改良测量工具之间的相关性较高,提供了收敛有效性的证据。我们建议在未来的研究中使用改良的 SCI-SET 和改良的 PRISM 测量工具。