Item-level psychometrics of the ADL instrument of the Korean National Survey on persons with physical disabilities
- 188 Downloads
The aim of this study is to investigate the psychometrics of the 12 items of an instrument assessing activities of daily living (ADL) using an item response theory model.
A total of 648 adults with physical disabilities and having difficulties in ADLs were retrieved from the 2014 Korean National Survey on People with Disabilities. The psychometric testing included factor analysis, internal consistency, precision, and differential item functioning (DIF) across categories including sex, older age, marital status, and physical impairment area.
The sample had a mean age of 69.7 years old (SD = 13.7). The majority of the sample had lower extremity impairments (62.0%) and had at least 2.1 chronic conditions. The instrument demonstrated unidimensional construct and good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95). The instrument precisely estimated person measures within a wide range of theta values (−2.22 logits < θ < 0.27 logits) with a reliability of 0.9. Only the changing position item demonstrated misfit (χ2 = 36.6, df = 17, p = 0.0038), and the dressing item demonstrated DIF on the impairment type (upper extremity/others, McFadden’s Pseudo R 2 > 5.0%).
Our findings indicate that the dressing item would need to be modified to improve its psychometrics. Overall, the ADL instrument demonstrates good psychometrics, and thus, it may be used as a standardized instrument for measuring disability in rehabilitation contexts. However, the findings are limited to adults with physical disabilities. Future studies should replicate psychometric testing for survey respondents with other disorders and for children.
KeywordsActivities of daily living Assessment Psychometrics Item response theory
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Ickpyo Hong, Mi Jung Lee, Moon-Young Kim, and Hae Yean Park declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study was exempted by the Institutional review boards (IRB) of Yonsei University because the research is a study of an existing dataset, the 2014 Korean National Survey on People with Disabilities which is publicly available. The study dataset is de-identified, such that subjects cannot be identified directly, or through identifiers linked to the subjects.
- 1.Korean Institute for Health and Social Affairs (2014). National Survey on People with Disabilities.Google Scholar
- 2.Kim, H.-O., & Joung, K. H. (2007). A study on the needs of health & community services among the disabled at home in rural areas. Journal of Korean Academy of Community Health Nursing, 18(3), 480–491.Google Scholar
- 7.Andersen, C. K., Wittrup-Jensen, K. U., Lolk, A., Andersen, K., & Kragh-Sørensen, P. (2004). Ability to perform activities of daily living is the main factor affecting quality of life in patients with dementia. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2(1), 1–7. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-2-52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Cook, C. E., Richardson, J. K., Pietrobon, R., Braga, L., Silva, H. M., & Turner, D. (2006). Validation of the NHANES ADL scale in a sample of patients with report of cervical pain: Factor analysis, item response theory analysis, and line item validity. Disability and Rehabilitation, 28(15), 929–935. doi: 10.1080/09638280500404263.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Curtin, L., Mohadjer, L., Dohrmann, S., Montaquila, J., Kruszan-Moran, D., Mirel, L., et al. (2012). The national health and nutrition examination survey: Sample design, 1999–2006. Vital and health statistics. Series 2, Data Evaluation and Methods Research, 155, 1–39.Google Scholar
- 16.Won, C. W., Rho, Y. G., Kim, S. Y., Cho, B. R., & Lee, Y. S. (2002). The validity and reliability of Korean Activities of Daily Living (K-ADL) scale. Journal of the Korean Geriatrics Society, 6(2), 98–106.Google Scholar
- 17.Won, C. W., Rho, Y. G., SunWoo, D., & Lee, Y. S. (2002). The validity and reliability of Korean Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (K-IADL) scale. Journal of the Korean Geriatrics Society, 6(4), 273–280.Google Scholar
- 18.Shin, S.-M., & Chun, J.-S. (2011). A study on donning and doffing independence of the person with disabilities on upper-limbs. Research Journal of the Costume Culture, 19(1), 42–53.Google Scholar
- 19.Hambleton, R. K. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory (Measurement methods for the social sciences series). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- 20.Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best test design. Chicago: Mesa Press.Google Scholar
- 21.Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
- 22.De Ayala, R. J. (2013). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- 25.Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2015). Mplus. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- 26.Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S22–S31. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.04.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Tabchnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyin & Bacon.Google Scholar
- 29.De Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. Methodology in the social sciences. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- 32.Adams, R. J. (1987). Adaptive testing, information, and the partial credit model. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
- 35.Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (2012). Differential item functioning. Princeton: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 36.Choi, S. W., Gibbons, L. E., & Crane, P. K. (2016). Logistic regression differential item functioning using IRT. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lordif/lordif.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2017.
- 37.Choi, S. W., Gibbons, L. E., & Crane, P. K. (2011). lordif: An R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and monte carlo simulations. Journal of Statistical Software, 39(8), 1–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 38.Cai, L., Thissen, D., & du Toit, S. H. C. (2011). IRTPRO for Windows (21st ed.). Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
- 39.SAS Institute Inc. (2015). SAS for Windows (94th ed.). Cary: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
- 41.Velozo, C. A., Byers, K. L., Wang, Y. C., & Joseph, B. R. (2007). Translating measures across the continuum of care: using Rasch analysis to create a crosswalk between the Functional Independence Measure and the Minimum Data Set. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 44(3), 467–478.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 43.Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2013). Item response theory. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- 46.Cabrero-Garcia, J., & Lopez-Pina, J. A. (2008). Aggregated measures of functional disability in a nationally representative sample of disabled people: analysis of dimensionality according to gender and severity of disability. Quality of Life Research, 17(3), 425–436. doi: 10.1007/s11136-008-9313-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 48.Merbitz, C., Morris, J., & Grip, J. C. (1989). Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 70(4), 308–312.Google Scholar