Measuring disability: application of the Rasch model to activities of daily living (ADL/IADL).

Journal of outcome measurement Pub Date : 2001-01-01
T J Sheehan, L M DeChello, R Garcia, J Fifield, N Rothfield, S Reisine
{"title":"Measuring disability: application of the Rasch model to activities of daily living (ADL/IADL).","authors":"T J Sheehan,&nbsp;L M DeChello,&nbsp;R Garcia,&nbsp;J Fifield,&nbsp;N Rothfield,&nbsp;S Reisine","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper describes a comparative analysis of (ADL) and (IADL) items administered to two samples, 4,430 persons representative of older Americans, and 605 persons representative of patients with rheumatoid arthrisit (RA). Responses are scored separately using both Likert and Rasch measurement models. While Likert scoring seems to provide information similar to Rasch, the descriptive statistics are often contrary if not contradictory, and estimates of reliability from Likert are inflated. The test characteristic curves derived from Rasch are similar despite differences between the levels of disability with the two samples. Correlations of Rasch item calibrations across three samples were .71, .76, and .80. The fit between the items and the samples, indicating the compatibility between the test and subjects, is seen much more clearly with Rasch with more than half of the general population measuring the extremes. Since research on disability depends on measures with known properties, the superiority of Rasch over Likert is evident.</p>","PeriodicalId":79673,"journal":{"name":"Journal of outcome measurement","volume":"5 1","pages":"839-63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of outcome measurement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper describes a comparative analysis of (ADL) and (IADL) items administered to two samples, 4,430 persons representative of older Americans, and 605 persons representative of patients with rheumatoid arthrisit (RA). Responses are scored separately using both Likert and Rasch measurement models. While Likert scoring seems to provide information similar to Rasch, the descriptive statistics are often contrary if not contradictory, and estimates of reliability from Likert are inflated. The test characteristic curves derived from Rasch are similar despite differences between the levels of disability with the two samples. Correlations of Rasch item calibrations across three samples were .71, .76, and .80. The fit between the items and the samples, indicating the compatibility between the test and subjects, is seen much more clearly with Rasch with more than half of the general population measuring the extremes. Since research on disability depends on measures with known properties, the superiority of Rasch over Likert is evident.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
测量残疾:Rasch模型在日常生活活动(ADL/IADL)中的应用。
本文描述了(ADL)和(IADL)项目对两个样本的比较分析,4430名美国老年人代表和605名类风湿性关节炎(RA)患者代表。分别使用Likert和Rasch测量模型对回答进行评分。虽然李克特评分似乎提供了与Rasch相似的信息,但描述性统计数据往往是相反的,如果不是矛盾的话,而且李克特的可靠性估计被夸大了。尽管两个样本的残疾水平存在差异,但从Rasch得出的测试特征曲线是相似的。三个样品的拉希项目校准的相关系数分别为0.71、0.76和0.80。项目和样本之间的契合度,表明了测试和受试者之间的兼容性,在Rasch中表现得更为明显,超过一半的普通人群测量了极端情况。由于对残疾的研究依赖于具有已知性质的测量,因此Rasch优于Likert是显而易见的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparison of seven different scales used to quantify severity of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and post-operative improvement. The impact of rater effects on weighted composite scores under nested and spiraled scoring designs, using the multifaceted Rasch model. Measuring disability: application of the Rasch model to activities of daily living (ADL/IADL). Competency gradient for child-parent centers. Alternate forms reliability of the assessment of motor and process skills.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1