A Rasch analysis of the Conley Scale in patients admitted to a general hospital

被引:12
作者
Pellicciari, Leonardo [1 ]
Piscitelli, Daniele [2 ,3 ]
Caselli, Serena [4 ,5 ]
La Porta, Fabio [6 ]
机构
[1] Azienda USL Toscana Ctr, Unit Funct Rehabil, Empoli, FI, Italy
[2] McGill Univ, Sch Phys & Occupat Therapy, Milan, Italy
[3] Univ Milano Bicocca, PhD Program Neurosci, Sch Med & Surg, Milan, Italy
[4] Azienda Osped Univ Modena, Dipartimento Neurosci, Unita Operat Med Riabilitat, Modena, Italy
[5] Univ Milano Bicocca, Scuola Dottorato Sanita Pubbl, Milan, Italy
[6] Azienda USL Bologna, Dipartimento Emergenza, Unita Operat Complessa Med Riabilitat & Neuroriab, Bologna, Italy
关键词
Accidental falls; patient outcome assessment; psychometrics; Rasch model; item response theory; classical theory test; UNIFIED BALANCE SCALE; MEASUREMENT MODEL; FALLS; RISK; INPATIENTS; VALIDITY;
D O I
10.1080/09638288.2018.1478000
中图分类号
R49 [康复医学];
学科分类号
100215 ;
摘要
Purpose: The Conley Scale (CS) is a widely used tool for assessing the risk of falling for inpatients. The purpose of this study was to assess its unidimensionality, internal construct validity, targeting and reliability using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Rasch analysis (RA). Methods: The CS was administrated to a sample of 58,370 subjects admitted to a general hospital. Results: The CFA supported the unidimensionality of the CS (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)?=?0.040) only after adjusting for local dependency between two items. The scale did not fit the Rasch model (?(2)(18)?=?4688.5; p?=?0.0000) and this was confirmed notwithstanding adjusting for type-I error (by creating 10-subsample of 250 subjects) and extensive post-hoc modifications. The analysis of targeting showed a marked floor effect (47.1%), whereas the reliability appeared adequate for group measurement (0.800) only after adjusting for the skewed distribution of the calibrating sample. Conclusion: The results of this study suggested that the CS, although unidimensional, could not provide interval-scale measurement of the risk of falling, had a measurement range that mismatched the ability range of the population being measured, and had a reliability inadequate for individual person measurements. Given these findings, the use of the CS to identify inpatients at risk of falling is not recommended.
引用
收藏
页码:2807 / 2816
页数:10
相关论文
共 57 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2007, RASCH MEASUREMENT T
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2010, RUMM 2030: Rasch Unidimensional Measurement Models [Computer software]
  • [3] [Anonymous], 1988, QUANTITATIVE APPL SO
  • [4] [Anonymous], RASCH MEAS T
  • [5] [Anonymous], 2013, DECL HELS ETH PRINC
  • [6] [Anonymous], 1982, Rating scale analysis
  • [7] [Anonymous], 2013, PREV FALLS OLD PEOPL
  • [8] [Anonymous], 2015, APPLYING RASCH MODEL, DOI DOI 10.4324/9781315814698
  • [9] [Anonymous], 2000, HDB APPL MULTIVARIAT
  • [10] SERIOUS FALLS IN HOSPITALIZED-PATIENTS - CORRELATES AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION
    BATES, DW
    PRUESS, K
    SOUNEY, P
    PLATT, R
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1995, 99 (02) : 137 - 143