Rasch analysis supported the construct validity of self-report measures of activity and participation derived from patient ratings of the ICF low back pain core set
To investigate whether measures of activity limitations and participation restrictions with sound internal construct validity could be derived from patient ratings of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Low Back Pain Core Set (LBP-CS).
The LBP-CS Self-Report Checklist (LBP-CS-SRC) was developed to permit patients to self-rate their functioning according to an extended set of activity and participation categories from the LBP-CS. Rasch analysis was employed to examine the validity of the LBP-CS-SRC with a sample of 308 adults with chronic LBP attending two tertiary-referral outpatient services in Brisbane, Australia.
The activity limitations and participation restrictions qualifier scales functioned satisfactorily, and the LBP-CS-SRC person response validity was good. Following deletion of six misfitting items, the dimensionality results supported employing the instrument as distinct measures of activity limitations (17 items) and participation restrictions (10 items). The activity and participation measures both had good person separation reliability and no component items exhibited meaningful differential item functioning.
The results demonstrate that measures of activity and participation with sound internal construct validity can be derived from patient ratings of LBP-CS categories. The LBP-CS-SRC can be used in clinical practice and epidemiologic research to support understanding of patients' perspectives on functioning.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2017.
All research outputs
#18,955,557
of 27,470,210 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#4,481
of 5,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#275,439
of 426,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#36
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,470,210 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 426,873 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
