Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Method to Provide a More Efficient and Reliable Measure of Self-Report Physical Work Capacity for Patients with Spinal Pain

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Self-report measures of functional ability are commonly used in occupational rehabilitation to measure the current status of an individual and his or her progress in response to intervention. Most of these measures have been developed using classical test theory that does not provide calibration of the items. Methods of test development that originated in the field of Education have been applied recently to healthcare measures, providing item calibration and allowing proportional evaluation of total scores. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the application of these methods in the revision of an existing self-report measure. The potential value of these methods to improve established measures is demonstrated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Merbitz C, Morris J, Grip C. Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. Archiv Phys Med Rehabil. 1989;70:308–12.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wright B, Linacre J. Observations are always ordinal; measurements, however, must be interval. Archiv Phys Med Rehabil. 1989;40:857–60.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Andrich D. Rasch models of measurement. Newbury Park: Sage; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain: Part 1: Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low back pain. Spine. 1983;8:141–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fairbank J, Couper J, Davies J, O’Brien J. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980;66(8):271–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. White L, Velozo C. The use of Rasch measurement to improve the Oswestry classification scheme. Archiv Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:822–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ware JJ, Sherbourne C. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McHorney CA, Haley SM, Ware JE Jr. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning Scale (PF-10): II. Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(4):451–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. DeVellis R. Scale development. Theory, applications. Applied social research methods series. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Nunnally J. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Galton F. Psychometric experiments. Brain. 1879;2:149–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lord F, Novick M. Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bock R. A brief history of item response theory. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 1997;16:21–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Linacre J. Winsteps Rasch model computer program manual. Chicago: Winsteps.com; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Weiss D. Improving measurement quality and efficiency with adaptive testing. Appl Psychol Meas. 1982;6:473–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and the attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danmarks Paedagogiske Institut; 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wright B, Stone M. Best test design. Chicago: MESA Press; 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Thomee R, Grimby G, Wright B, Linacre J. Rasch analysis of visual analog scale measurements before and after treatment of patellofemoral pain syndrome in women. Scand J Rehab Med. 1995;27:145–51.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Linacre J, Heinemann A, Wright B, Granger C, Hamilton B. The structure and stability of the functional independence measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75:127–32.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Heinemann A, Linacre J, Wright B, Hamilton B, Granger C. Measurement characteristics of the functional independence measure. Topics Stroke Rehabil. 1994;1(3):1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Campbell S, Wright B, Linacre J. Development of a functional movement scale for infants. J Appl Meas. 2002;3(2):190–204.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bode R, Lai J, Dineen K, Heinemann A, Shevrin D, Van Roenn J, et al. Expansion of a physical function item bank and development of an abbreviated form for clinical research. J Appl Meas. 2006;7(1):1–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ware JE Jr. Conceptualization and measurement of health-related quality of life: comments on an evolving field. Archiv Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84(4 Suppl 2):S43–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Coster W, Haley SM, Jette A, Tao W, Siebens H. Predictors of basic and instrumental activities of daily living performance in persons receiving rehabilitation services. Archiv Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(7):928–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Coster WJ, Haley SM, Jette AM. Measuring patient-reported outcomes after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation settings. J Rehabil Med. 2006;38(4):237–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Haley SM, Fragala-Pinkham MA. Interpreting change scores of tests and measures used in physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2006;86(5):735–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Woodbury ML, Velozo CA, Richards LG, Duncan PW, Studenski S, Lai S-M. Dimensionality and construct validity of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the upper extremity. Archiv Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(6):715–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chiu Y-P, Fritz SL, Light KE, Velozo CA. Use of item response analysis to investigate measurement properties and clinical validity of data for the dynamic gait index. Phys Ther. 2006;86(6):778–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Velozo CA, Lai JS, Mallinson T, Hauselman E. Maintaining instrument quality while reducing items: application of Rasch analysis to a self-report of visual function. J Outcome Meas. 2000;4(3):667–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Velozo CA, Kielhofner G, Lai JS. The use of Rasch analysis to produce scale-free measurement of functional ability. Am J Occup Ther. 1999;53(1):83–90.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Hart DL, Mioduski JE, Stratford PW. Simulated computerized adaptive tests for measuring functional status were efficient with good discriminant validity in patients with hip, knee, or foot/ankle impairments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(6):629–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hays RD, Liu H, Spritzer K, Cella D. Item response theory analyses of physical functioning items in the medical outcomes study. Med Care. 2007;45(5 Suppl 1):S32–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, Gershon R, Cook K, Reeve B, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med. Care. 2007;45(5 Suppl 1):S3–S11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Reeve BB, Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Cook KF, Crane PK, Teresi JA, et al. Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care. 2007;45(5 Suppl 1):S22–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:357–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wright B, Linacre J, Heineman A. Measuring functional status in rehabilitation. In: Granger C, Gresham G, editors. Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America: new developments in functional assessment. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1993.

  37. Wilson M, Allen D, Li J. Improving measurement in health education and health behavior research using item response modeling: introducing item response modeling. Health Educ Res. 2006;21(Suppl 1):i4–i18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bond T, Fox C. Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. 2nd ed. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Norquist J, Fitzpatrick R, Dawson J, Jenknison C. Comparing alternative Rasch-based methods vs raw scores in measuring change in health. Med Care. 2004;42(Suppl 1):1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Mayer J, Mooney V, Matheson L, Leggett S, Verna J, Balourdas G, et al. The reliability and validity of a new computerized pictorial activity and task sort. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(2):185–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Matheson L, Matheson M, Grant J. Development of a measure of perceived functional ability. J Occup Rehabil. 1993;3(1):15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Matheson L, Kaskutas V, Mada D. Development and construct validation of the Hand Function Sort. J Occup Rehabil. 2001;11(2):75–86.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Matheson L, Sarkin A, Mayer J, Mooney V, Verna J, Leggett S. Calibration of the difficulty of work activities and activities of daily living for patients with spinal pain. North American Spine Society 22nd Annual Meeting; October 23–27, Austin, TX; 2007.

  44. Andrich D. Statistical reasoning in psychometric models and educational measurement. J Educ Meas. 1989;26(1):81–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Linacre J. Winsteps. 3.63. 2 ed. Chicago: Winsteps Rasch Measurement; 2007.

  46. Velozo CA, Choi B, Zylstra SE, Santopoalo R. Measurement qualities of a self-report and therapist-scored functional capacity instrument based on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. J Occup Rehabil. 2006;16(1):109–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Portney L, Watkins M. Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Bond T, Fox C. Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Cronbach L. Essentials of psychological testing. 3rd ed. New York: Harper & Row; 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Linacre J. What do Infit and Outfit mean square and standardized mean? Rasch Meas Trans. 2002;16(2):878.

    Google Scholar 

  51. McHorney C, Monahan P. Applications of Rasch analysis in health care. Med Care. 2004;42(Suppl 1):73–8.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Resnik L, Feng Z, Hart DL. State regulation and the delivery of physical therapy services. Health Serv Res. 2006;41(4 Pt 1):1296–316.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. U.S. Spine & Sport Foundation, San Diego, CA, USA

    Leonard Matheson, John Mayer, Vert Mooney, Joe Verna & Scott Leggett

  2. EpicRehab, Chesterfield, MO, USA

    Leonard Matheson

  3. EpicRehab, 188 Woodlands Place Court, St. Charles, MO, 63303, USA

    Leonard Matheson

  4. University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA

    Andrew Sarkin

  5. Integrated Pain Solutions, Troy, MI, USA

    Theodore Dreisinger

Authors
  1. Leonard Matheson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Mayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vert Mooney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew Sarkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Theodore Dreisinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joe Verna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Scott Leggett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonard Matheson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Matheson, L., Mayer, J., Mooney, V. et al. A Method to Provide a More Efficient and Reliable Measure of Self-Report Physical Work Capacity for Patients with Spinal Pain. J Occup Rehabil 18, 46–57 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-007-9111-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-007-9111-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation