闭合性外伤性脑损伤门诊患者功能评估量表(FAM):一项基于rasch的心理测量学研究。

Journal of outcome measurement Pub Date : 1998-01-01
L Tesio, A Cantagallo
{"title":"闭合性外伤性脑损伤门诊患者功能评估量表(FAM):一项基于rasch的心理测量学研究。","authors":"L Tesio,&nbsp;A Cantagallo","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Functional Assessment Measure (FAM) has been proposed as a measure of disability in post-acute Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) outpatients. It is comprised of the 18 items of The Functional Independence Measure (FIMSM), scored in terms of dependence, and of 12 newly designed items, scored in terms of dependence (7 items) or performance (5 items). The FIMSM covers the domains of self-care, sphincter management, mobility, locomotion, communication and social cognition. The 12 new items explore the domains of community integration, emotional status, orientation, attention, reading/writing skills, swallowing and speech intelligibility. By addressing a set of problems quite specific for TBI outpatients the FAM was intended to raise the ceiling of the FIMSM and to allow a more precise estimate of their disability. These claims, however, were never supported in previous studies. We administered the FAM to 60 TBI outpatient, 2-88 months (median 16) from trauma. Rasch analysis (rating scale model) was adopted to test the psychometric properties of the scale. The FAM was reliable (Rasch item and person reliability 0.91 and 0.93, respectively). Two of the 12 FAM-specific items were severely misfitting with the general construct, and were deleted. Within the 28-item refined FAM scale, 4 new items and 2 FIMSM items still retained signs of misfit. The FAM was on average too easy. The most difficult item (a new one, Employability) did not attain the average ability of the subjects. Also, it was only slightly more difficult than than the most difficult FIMSM item (Memory). The FAM does not seem to improve the FIMSM as a far as TBI outpatients are to be assessed.</p>","PeriodicalId":79673,"journal":{"name":"Journal of outcome measurement","volume":"2 2","pages":"79-96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The functional assessment measure (FAM) in closed traumatic brain injury outpatients: a Rasch-based psychometric study.\",\"authors\":\"L Tesio,&nbsp;A Cantagallo\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Functional Assessment Measure (FAM) has been proposed as a measure of disability in post-acute Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) outpatients. It is comprised of the 18 items of The Functional Independence Measure (FIMSM), scored in terms of dependence, and of 12 newly designed items, scored in terms of dependence (7 items) or performance (5 items). The FIMSM covers the domains of self-care, sphincter management, mobility, locomotion, communication and social cognition. The 12 new items explore the domains of community integration, emotional status, orientation, attention, reading/writing skills, swallowing and speech intelligibility. By addressing a set of problems quite specific for TBI outpatients the FAM was intended to raise the ceiling of the FIMSM and to allow a more precise estimate of their disability. These claims, however, were never supported in previous studies. We administered the FAM to 60 TBI outpatient, 2-88 months (median 16) from trauma. Rasch analysis (rating scale model) was adopted to test the psychometric properties of the scale. The FAM was reliable (Rasch item and person reliability 0.91 and 0.93, respectively). Two of the 12 FAM-specific items were severely misfitting with the general construct, and were deleted. Within the 28-item refined FAM scale, 4 new items and 2 FIMSM items still retained signs of misfit. The FAM was on average too easy. The most difficult item (a new one, Employability) did not attain the average ability of the subjects. Also, it was only slightly more difficult than than the most difficult FIMSM item (Memory). The FAM does not seem to improve the FIMSM as a far as TBI outpatients are to be assessed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79673,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of outcome measurement\",\"volume\":\"2 2\",\"pages\":\"79-96\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1998-01-01\",\"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}","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

摘要

功能评估量表(FAM)已被提议作为急性创伤性脑损伤(TBI)后门诊患者残疾的衡量标准。它由18个功能独立性量表(FIMSM)的依赖得分项目和12个新设计的依赖得分项目(7个项目)或性能得分项目(5个项目)组成。FIMSM涵盖了自我护理、括约肌管理、移动、运动、沟通和社会认知等领域。这12个新项目探讨了社区整合、情感状态、取向、注意力、阅读/写作技能、吞咽和言语可理解性等领域。通过解决TBI门诊患者的一系列非常具体的问题,FAM旨在提高FIMSM的上限,并允许对其残疾进行更精确的估计。然而,这些说法在以前的研究中从未得到支持。我们对60名创伤后2-88个月(中位16个月)的TBI门诊患者进行FAM治疗。采用Rasch分析(评定量表模型)对量表的心理测量特性进行检验。FAM是可靠的(Rasch项目和个人信度分别为0.91和0.93)。12个fam特异性项目中有2个与一般结构严重不匹配,被删除。在改良的28个FAM量表中,4个新条目和2个FIMSM条目仍然保留了不匹配的迹象。FAM平均来说太简单了。最难的项目(新设的“就业能力”)没有达到受试者的平均水平。而且,它只比最难的FIMSM项目(记忆)稍微难一点。FAM似乎并没有改善FIMSM,就TBI门诊患者进行评估而言。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The functional assessment measure (FAM) in closed traumatic brain injury outpatients: a Rasch-based psychometric study.

The Functional Assessment Measure (FAM) has been proposed as a measure of disability in post-acute Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) outpatients. It is comprised of the 18 items of The Functional Independence Measure (FIMSM), scored in terms of dependence, and of 12 newly designed items, scored in terms of dependence (7 items) or performance (5 items). The FIMSM covers the domains of self-care, sphincter management, mobility, locomotion, communication and social cognition. The 12 new items explore the domains of community integration, emotional status, orientation, attention, reading/writing skills, swallowing and speech intelligibility. By addressing a set of problems quite specific for TBI outpatients the FAM was intended to raise the ceiling of the FIMSM and to allow a more precise estimate of their disability. These claims, however, were never supported in previous studies. We administered the FAM to 60 TBI outpatient, 2-88 months (median 16) from trauma. Rasch analysis (rating scale model) was adopted to test the psychometric properties of the scale. The FAM was reliable (Rasch item and person reliability 0.91 and 0.93, respectively). Two of the 12 FAM-specific items were severely misfitting with the general construct, and were deleted. Within the 28-item refined FAM scale, 4 new items and 2 FIMSM items still retained signs of misfit. The FAM was on average too easy. The most difficult item (a new one, Employability) did not attain the average ability of the subjects. Also, it was only slightly more difficult than than the most difficult FIMSM item (Memory). The FAM does not seem to improve the FIMSM as a far as TBI outpatients are to be assessed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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