↓ Skip to main content

A Mokken analysis of the literacy in musculoskeletal problems questionnaire

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
A Mokken analysis of the literacy in musculoskeletal problems questionnaire
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0826-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brett Vaughan, Jane Mulcahy, Amy Coffey, Laura Addinsall, Stephanie Ryan, Kylie Fitzgerald

Abstract

Limited health literacy is known to impact on medication adherence, hospital readmission and potentially poorer health outcomes. The literature on the health literacy of those with musculoskeletal conditions suggests greater functional limitations and increased pain levels. There are a number of measures of health literacy. One that specifically relates to musculoskeletal complaints is the Literacy in Musculoskeletal Problems (LiMP) questionnaire. The LiMP contains 9 multiple choice items that cover anatomy, musculoskeletal conditions and the diagnosis of musculoskeletal complaints. The aim of the study was to evaluate the dimensionality and internal structure of the LiMP in patients attending for osteopathy care at a student-led clinic, as a potential measure of musculoskeletal health literacy. Three hundred and sixty-one (n = 361) new patients attending the Victoria University Osteopathy Clinic completed the LiMP and a demographic and health information questionnaire prior to their initial consultation. Mokken scale analysis, a nonparametric item response theory approach, was used to evaluate the dimensionality and structure of the LiMP in this population, to ascertain whether the questionnaire was measuring a single latent construct - musculoskeletal health literacy. McDonald's omega and Cronbach's alpha were calculated as the reliability estimations. The relationship between the LiMP and a single item screen of health literacy was also undertaken. The 9 items on the LiMP did not form a Mokken scale and the reliability estimations were below an acceptable level (alpha and omega <0.45). LiMP items 5 and 8 were more likely to be answered correctly by those with higher health literacy (p < 0.05), however the effect sizes were small (<0.20). Calculation of a total score for the LiMP, as advocated by the original authors, is not supported based on data in the present study. Further research is required to explore the relationship of the LiMP items to demographic and clinical data, and to other broader measures of health literacy. Further research may also develop a health literacy measure that is specific to patients seeking manual therapy care for musculoskeletal complaints.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 14%
Other 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Unspecified 3 5%
Librarian 3 5%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 21 36%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 12%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Unspecified 3 5%
Sports and Recreations 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 27 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 May 2018.
All research outputs
#18,096,977
of 29,353,077 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,358
of 2,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,529
of 461,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#36
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,353,077 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,432 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 461,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.