4.6 Article

Rasch analysis reveals comparative analyses of activities of daily living/instrumental activities of daily living summary scores from different residential settings is inappropriate

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 74, 期 -, 页码 207-217

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.11.006

关键词

Activities of daily living; Survey methodology; Item response theory; Rasch model; Geriatrics; Data sharing

资金

  1. Dutch National Care for the Elderly Programme under ZonMw (the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development) [310300002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To internally validate a 15-item dichotomous activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) index. Study Design and Setting: Data were extracted from The Older Persons and Informal Caregivers Survey Minimum DataSet (TOPICS-MDS). Using Rasch modeling, six aspects of the ADL/IADL scale were assessed: (1) overall fit, (2) intemal consistency, (3) individual item and person fit, (4) local dependency, (5) targeting, and (6) differential item functioning (DIF) (RUMM 2030). All analyses were stratified by living situation [community-dwelling (n = 21,926) or residential care facility (n = 2,458)]. Results: In both settings, eating was the easiest activity on the scale and performing household tasks was the most difficult activity. However, based on the location on the logit scale, the level of difficulty for certain items varied between residential settings, suggesting summary scores are not equivalent between these settings. DIF by gender and age group was observed for several items, indicating potential measurement bias in the scale. Conclusion: Unless adjustments are undertaken, ADL/IADL summary scores retrieved from older persons residing in the community or residential care facilities should not be directly compared. This 15-item scale is poorly targeted for a community-dwelling older population, underscoring the need for items with improved discriminative ability. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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