4.5 Article

A Multidimensional Rasch Analysis of the Functional Independence Measure Based on the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems National Database

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA
卷 33, 期 14, 页码 1358-1362

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/neu.2015.4138

关键词

measurement; Rasch analysis; rehabilitation outcome; traumatic brain injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A number of studies have evaluated the psychometric properties of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM (TM)) using Rasch analysis, although none has done so using the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems National Database, a longitudinal database that captures demographic and outcome information on persons with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury across the United States. In the current study, we examine the psychometric properties of the FIM as represented by persons within this database and demonstrate that the FIM comprises three subscales representing cognitive, self-care, and mobility domains. These subscales were analyzed simultaneously using a multivariate Rasch model in combination with a time dependent concurrent calibration scheme with the goal of creating a raw score-to-logit transformation that can be used to improve the accuracy of parametric statistical analyses. The bowel and bladder function items were removed because of misfit with the motor and cognitive items. Some motor items exhibited step disorder, which was addressed by collapsing Categories 1-3 for Toileting, Stairs, Locomotion, Tub/Shower Transfers; Categories 1 and 2 for Toilet and Bed Transfers; and Categories 2 and 3 for Grooming. The strong correlations (r = 0.82-0.96) among the three subscales suggest they should be modeled together. Coefficient alpha of 0.98 indicates high internal consistency. Keyform maps are provided to enhance clinical interpretation and application of study results.

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

4.5
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