’Less is more’: validation with Rasch analysis of five short-forms for the Brain Injury Rehabilitation Trust Personality Questionnaires (BIRT-PQs)

References

• Wood RL. Understanding neurobehavioural disability. In: Wood RL, McMillan TM, editors. Neurobehavioural disability and social handicap following traumatic brain injury. Philadelphia: Psychology Press Ltd; 2001. p. 3–27.
   Google Scholar
• Cattran CJ, Oddy M, Wood RL, Moir JF. Post-injury personality in the prediction of outcome following severe acquired brain injury. Brain Inj. 2011;25(11):1035–46. doi:10.3109/02699052.2011.607787.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nightingale EJ, Soo CA, Tate RL. A systematic review of early prognostic factors for return to work after traumatic brain injury. Brain Impair. 2007;8(2). doi:10.1375/brim.8.2.101.
   Google Scholar
• Moretta P, Masotta O, Crispino E, Castronovo G, Ruvolo S, Montalbano C, Loreto V, Trojano L, Estraneo APsychological distress is associated with altered cognitive functioning in family caregivers of patients with disorders of consciousness. Brain Inj. 2017;31(8):1088–93. doi:10.1080/02699052.2017.1290278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moretta P, Estraneo A, De Lucia L, Cardinale V, Loreto V, Trojano L.A study of the psychological distress in family caregivers of patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness during in-hospital rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil. 2014;28(7):717–25. doi:10.1177/0269215514521826.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreutzer JS, Gervasio AH, Camplair PS. Primary caregivers’ psychological status and family functioning after traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 1994;8(3):197–210. doi:10.3109/02699059409150973.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufer DI. Neurobehavioral assessment. Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2015;21(3Behavioral Neurology and Neuropsychiatry):597–612. doi:10.1212/01.CON.0000466655.51790.2f.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Silver JM, McAllister TW, Arciniegas DB. American psychiatric association. Textbook of traumatic brain injury. 3rd ed. Washington (DC): American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2019. p. xxxii, 953.
   Google Scholar
• Oddy M, Cattran C, Wood R. The development of a measure of motivational changes following acquired brain injury. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2008;30(5):568–75. doi:10.1080/13803390701555598.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cattran C, Oddy M, Wood R. The development of a measure of emotional regulation following acquired brain injury. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2011;33(6):672–79. doi:10.1080/13803395.2010.550603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basagni B, Piscitelli D, De Tanti A, Pellicciari L, Algeri L, Caselli S The unidimensionality of the five brain injury rehabilitation trust personality questionnaires (BIRT-PQs) may be improved: preliminary evidence from classical psychometrics. Brain Inj. 2020:1–12. doi:10.1080/02699052.2020.1723700.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kucukdeveci AA, Tennant A, Grimby G, Franchignoni F. Strategies for assessment and outcome measurement in physical and rehabilitation medicine: an educational review. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(8):661–72. doi:10.2340/16501977-0844.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Porta F, Franceschini M, Caselli S, Cavallini P, Susassi S, Tennant A. Unified Balance Scale: an activity-based, bed to community, and aetiology-independent measure of balance calibrated with Rasch analysis. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(5):435–44. doi:10.2340/16501977-0797.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland PW, Wainer H. Differential item functioning, Holland PW, Wainer H, editors. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 1993. xv, 453p.
   Google Scholar
• Tennant A, Conaghan PG. The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57(8):1358–62. doi:10.1002/art.23108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pallant JF, Tennant A. An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: an example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Br J Clin Psychol. 2007;46(Pt 1):1–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrich D. Rasch models for measurement. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1988. p. 95.
   Google Scholar
• Rasch G. Studies in mathematical psychology: I. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. 1960.
   Google Scholar
• Kreiner S. The Rasch models for dichotomous items. London, Hoboken (NJ): ISTE; John Wiley & Sons; 2013. p. xvi, 368.
   Google Scholar
• Smith EV Jr. Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. J Appl Meas. 2002;3(2):205–31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marais I. Local dependence. London Hoboken (NJ): ISTE; John Wiley & Sons; 2013. p. xvi, 368.
   Google Scholar
• Tennant A, Penta M, Tesio L, Grimby G, Thonnard JL, Slade A, Lawton G, Simone A, Carter J, Lundgren-Nilsson Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through differential item functioning within the framework of the Rasch model: the PRO-ESOR project. Med Care. 2004;42(1 Suppl):I37–48. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000103529.63132.77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher WP. Rating scale instrument quality criteria. Rasch Meas Trans. 2007;21(1):1095.
   Google Scholar
• Hobart J, Cano S. Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: the role of new psychometric methods. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(12):iii,ix–x, 1–177. doi:10.3310/hta13120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item response theory for psychologists. Mahway (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Perline R, Wright BD, Wainer H. The Rasch model as additive conjoint measurement. Appl Psychol Meas. 1979;3(2):237–55.
   Google Scholar
• Tesio L. Measuring behaviours and perceptions: rasch analysis as a tool for rehabilitation research. J Rehabil Med. 2003;35(3):105–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piscitelli D, Pellicciari L. Responsiveness: is it time to move beyond ordinal scores and approach interval measurements? Clin Rehabil. 2018;32(10):1426–27. doi:10.1177/0269215518794069.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–94. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyde CJ. The measurement and impact of five personality changes after brain injury. Swansea: University of Wales; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Basagni B, Navarrete E, Bertoni D, Cattran C, Mapelli D, Oddy M, De Tanti A. The Italian version of the brain injury rehabilitation trust (BIRT) personality questionnaires: five new measures of personality change after acquired brain injury. Neurol Sci. 2015;36(10):1793–98. doi:10.1007/s10072-015-2251-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellicciari L, Piscitelli D, Caselli S, La Porta FA. Rasch analysis of the Conley Scale in patients admitted to a general hospital. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;1–10. doi:10.1080/09638288.2018.1478000.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Porta F, Caselli S, Susassi S, Cavallini P, Tennant A, Franceschini M. Is the berg balance scale an internally valid and reliable measure of balance across different etiologies in neurorehabilitation? A revisited Rasch analysis study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(7):1209–16. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2012.02.020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Porta F, Giordano A, Caselli S, Foti C, Franchignoni F. Is the Berg Balance Scale an effective tool for the measurement of early postural control impairments in patients with Parkinson’s disease? Evidence from Rasch analysis. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2015;51(6):705–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panella L, La Porta F, Caselli S, Marchisio S, Tennant A. Predicting the need for institutional care shortly after admission to rehabilitation: rasch analysis and predictive validity of the BRASS Index. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2012;48(3):443–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrich D, Sheridan BS, Luo G. RUMM 2030: Rasch unidimensional models for measurement manual (version 5.1). Perth, Western Australia: RUMM Laboratory; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Maritz R, Tennant A, Fellinghauer C, Stucki G, Prodinger B. The functional independence measure 18-item version can be reported as a unidimensional interval-scaled metric: internal construct validity revisited. J Rehabil Med. 2019;51(3):193–200. doi:10.2340/16501977-2525.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellicciari L, Ottonello M, Giordano A, Albensi C, Franchignoni F. The 88-item multiple sclerosis spasticity scale: a Rasch validation of the Italian version and suggestions for refinement of the original scale. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(1):221–31. doi:10.1007/s11136-018-2005-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meroni R, Piscitelli D, Bonetti F, Zambaldi M, Cerri CG, Guccione AA, Pillastrini P. Rasch analysis of the italian version of pain catastrophizing scale (PCS-I). J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2015;28(4):661–73. doi:10.3233/BMR-140564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen KB, Makransky G, Horton M.Critical values for Yen’s Q 3: identification of local dependence in the Rasch model using residual correlations. Appl Psychol Meas. 2017;41(3):178–94. doi:10.1177/0146621616677520.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tennant A, Pallant J. DIF matters: A practical approach to test if differential item functioning makes a difference. Rasch Measure Trans. 2007;20(4):1082–84.
   Google Scholar
• Wright BD. Separation, reliability and skewed distributions: statistically different levels of performance. Rasch Measure Trans. 2001;14(4):786.
   Google Scholar
• Brodersen J, Doward LC, Thorsen H, Mckenna SP. Writing health-related items for Rasch models - patient-reported outcome scales for health sciences: from medical paternalism to patient autonomy. In: Christensen KB, Kreiner S, Mesbah M, editors. Rasch models in health. applied mathematics series, 281–302. London UK, Hoboken NJ: ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Reeve BB, Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Cook KF, Crane PK, Teresi JA, Thissen D, Revicki DA, Weiss DJ, Hambleton RK, et al. Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Med Care. 2007;45(5 Suppl 1):S22–31. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.04.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revicki DA, Chen W, Tucker CA. Developing item banks for patient-reported health outcomes. In: Handbook of item response theory modeling: applications to typical performance assessments, 334–363. New York (NY): Routledge; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J Appl Meas. 2002;3(1):85–106.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Franchignoni F, Horak F, Godi M, Nardone A, Giordano A. Using psychometric techniques to improve the Balance Evaluation Systems Test: the mini-BESTest. J Rehabil Med. 2010;42(4):323–31. doi:10.2340/16501977-0537.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geri T, Piscitelli D, Meroni R, Bonetti F, Giovannico G, Traversi R, Testa M. Rasch analysis of the neck bournemouth questionnaire to measure disability related to chronic neck pain. J Rehabil Med. 2015;47(9):836–43. doi:10.2340/16501977-2001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundgren Nilsson A, Tennant A. Past and present issues in Rasch analysis: the functional independence measure (FIM) revisited. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(10):884–91. doi:10.2340/16501977-0871.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrich D, Lyne A, Sheridan B, Luo G. RUMM 2020. Perth: RUMM Laboratory; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Meas Trans. 1994;7:328.
   Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. BMJ. 1995;310(6973):170. doi:10.1136/bmj.310.6973.170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Porta F. on behalf of the ERRTG (European Rasch Research & Teaching Group). Bologna, Italy: RUMM Logbook v1.9.5 ed; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Andrich D. An expanded derivation of the threshold structure of the polytomous rasch model that dispels any “threshold disorder controversy”. Educ Psychol Meas. 2013;73(1):78–124. doi:10.1177/0013164412450877.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrich D, Humphry SM, Marais I. Quantifying local, response dependence between two polytomous items using the Rasch model. Appl Psychol Meas. 2012;36(4):309–24. doi:10.1177/0146621612441858.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy R, Dubois B. Apathy and the functional anatomy of the prefrontal cortex-basal ganglia circuits. Cereb Cortex. 2006;16(7):916–28. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhj043.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, Boers M, Tugwell P, Clarke M, Williamson PR, Terwee CB. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set” - a practical guideline. Trials. 2016;17(1):449. doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1555-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svensson E. Guidelines to statistical evaluation of data from rating scales and questionnaires. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33(1650–1977(Print)):47–48. doi:10.1080/165019701300006542.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar