4.5 Article

Rasch analysis of items from two self-report measures of motor function: determination of item difficulty and relationships with children's ability levels

Journal

DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE AND CHILD NEUROLOGY
Volume 54, Issue 5, Pages 443-450

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2012.04231.x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. American Academy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim The aim of this article was to determine item measurement properties of a set of items selected from the Gillette Functional Assessment Questionnaire (FAQ) and the Pediatric Outcome Data Collection Instrument (PODCI) using Rasch analysis, and to explore relationships between the FAQ/PODCI combined set of items, FAQ walking scale level, Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels, and the Gait Deviation Index on a common measurement scale. METHOD Rasch analysis was performed on data from a retrospective chart review of parentreported FAQ and PODCI data from485 individuals (273males; 212 females; mean age 9y 10mo, SD 3y 10mo) who underwent first-time three-dimensional gait analysis. Of the 485 individuals, 289 had a diagnosis of cerebral palsy (104 GMFCS level I, 97 GMFCS level II, 69 GMFCS level III, and 19 GMFCS level IV). Rasch-based person abilities and item difficulties based on subgroups defined by the FAQ walking scale level, Gait Deviation Index, and the GMFCS level were compared. RESULTS The FAQ/ PODCI item set demonstrated necessary Rasch characteristics to support its use as a combined measurement scale. Item groupings at similar difficulty levels were consistent with themean person abilities of subgroups based on FAQ walking scale level, Gait Deviation Index, and GMFCS level. INTERPRETATION Rasch-derived person ability scores from the FAQ/ PODCI combined item set are consistent with clinical measures. Rasch analysis provides insights thatmay improve interpretation of the difficulty of motor functions for children with disabilities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available