4.4 Article

Rasch validation and refinement of the Lymphedema Life Impact Scale version 2 in an Italian cohort with secondary lymphedema

期刊

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
卷 45, 期 22, 页码 3755-3761

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2022.2135773

关键词

Lymphedema; rehabilitation; quality of life; patient outcome assessment; psychometrics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to develop and validate an Italian version of the Lymphedema Life Impact Scale version 2 (LLISv2-It) for assessing the impact of lymphedema on health-related quality of life. The results indicated that LLISv2-It is reliable and valid, and it is recommended to exclude items #12 and #18 in the total score.
Purpose To produce and validate an Italian version of the Lymphedema Life Impact Scale version 2 (LLISv2-It), a tool measuring the impact of lymphedema on health-related quality of life, and investigate its main psychometric characteristics. Methods After translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the LLISv2, we administered it to 156 subjects with secondary lymphedema (upper or lower limb), together with (depending on the limb involved) either the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) or the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS). We analyzed the performance of LLISv2-It using Classical Test Theory and Rasch methods. Results Cronbach alpha was 0.89. Item fit statistics indicated that item #12 was underfitting (Infit MnSQ = 1.56; Outfit MnSq = 1.75). Test-retest reliability of the 17-item version (without item #18, not scored, according to the original authors) and of a 16-item version (without #12 and #18-a unidimensional item set) were both excellent (ICC2.1 = 0.93; 95%). The minimum detectable change was 8.9 points. The correlation of LLISv2-It with DASH and LEFS was r = 0.81 and -0.57, respectively. Conclusions The Italian version of the LLISv2 is reliable and valid. To make the tool more psychometrically sound, we recommend to not calculate items #12 and #18 in the total score.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据