Validity evidence for a modified version of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey

References

• Hill W, Kyberd P, Norling Hermansson L, Hubbard S, Stavdahl Ø, Swanson S. Upper limb prosthetic outcome measures (ULPOM): A working group and their findings. J Prosthet Orthot 2009;21:69–82.
   Google Scholar
• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington: American Educational Research Association, 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Hays RD, Hadorn D. Responsiveness to change: an aspect of validity, not a separate dimension. Qual Life Res 1992;1:73–75.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Heinemann AW, Bode RK, O’Reilly C. Development and measurement properties of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey (OPUS): a comprehensive set of clinical outcome instruments. Prosthet Orthot Int 2003;27:191–206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindner HY, Nätterlund BS, Hermansson LM. Upper limb prosthetic outcome measures: review and content comparison based on International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Prosthet Orthot Int 2010;34:109–128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burger H, Franchignoni F, Heinemann AW, Kotnik S, Giordano A. Validation of the orthotics and prosthetics user survey upper extremity functional status module in people with unilateral upper limb amputation. J Rehabil Med 2008;40:393–399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarl GM, Hermansson LM. Translation and linguistic validation of the Swedish version of Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey. Prosthet Orthot Int 2009;33:329–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linacre J. Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Meas Trans 1994;7:328.
   Google Scholar
• Hays RD, Brown J, Brown LU, Spritzer KL, Crall JJ. Classical test theory and item response theory analyses of multi-item scales assessing parents’ perceptions of their children’s dental care. Med Care 2006;44:S60–S68.
   Google Scholar
• Karlsson K. Verksamhetsberättelse (Annual report). Örebro: Ortopedteknik (Department of prosthetics and orthotics), Habiliteringen, Örebro Läns Landsting, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. Winsteps® [Computer Software]. In. Version 3.69.1. Beaverton, Oregon: Winsteps.com. Available from: http://www.winsteps.com/2009.
   Google Scholar
• Wright BD, Mok MMC. An overview of the family of Rasch measurement models. In: Smith EV, Jr & Smith RM editors Introduction to Rasch measurement: Theory, models and applications. Maple Grove: JAM Press; 2004. p 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. Optimizing Rating Scale Category Effectiveness. In: Smith EVJ & Smith RM editors Introduction to Rasch measurement: Theory, models, and applications. Maple Grove: JAM Press 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Second ed. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson M. Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Wright BD, Linacre JM. Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Meas Trans 1994;8:370.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer WP Jr. Rating scale instrument quality criteria. Rasch Meas Trans 2007;21:1095.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre JM.. A user’s guide to Winsteps (program manual 3.69.0). Beaverton, Oregon: Winsteps.com, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Raîche G. Critical eigenvalue sizes in standardized residual principal components analysis. Rasch Meas Trans 2005;19:1012.
   Google Scholar
• Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating Scale Analysis: Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA Press, 1982.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt A, Kreiner S, Iwarsson S. Mobility-related participation and user satisfaction: construct validity in the context of powered wheelchair use. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2010;5:305–313.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chien TW, Wang WC, Lin SB, Lin CY, Guo HR, Su SB. KIDMAP, a web based system for gathering patients’ feedback on their doctors. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009;9:38.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fleishman JA, Lawrence WF. Demographic variation in SF-12 scores: true differences or differential item functioning? Med Care 2003;41:III75–III86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gothwal VK, Wright TA, Lamoureux EL, Pesudovs K. Rasch analysis of visual function and quality of life questionnaires. Optom Vis Sci 2009;86:1160–1168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ko Y, Lo NN, Yeo SJ, Yang KY, Yeo W, Chong HC, Thumboo J. Rasch analysis of the Oxford Knee Score. Osteoarthr Cartil 2009;17:1163–1169.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tennant A, Pallant JF. DIF matters: A practical approach to test if differential item functioning makes a difference. Rasch Meas Trans 2007;20:1082–1084.
   Google Scholar
• Roznowski M, Reith J. Examining the measurement quality of tests containing differentially functioning items: do biased items result in poor measurement? Educ Psychol Meas 1999;59:248–269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodbury ML, Velozo CA, Richards LG, Duncan PW, Studenski S, Lai SM. Longitudinal stability of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the upper extremity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89:1563–1569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai JS, Cella D, Chang CH, Bode RK, Heinemann AW. Item banking to improve, shorten and computerize self-reported fatigue: an illustration of steps to create a core item bank from the FACIT-Fatigue Scale. Qual Life Res 2003;12:485–501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith AB, Wright P, Selby PJ, Velikova G. A Rasch and factor analysis of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007;5:19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe EW, Smith EV Jr. Instrument development tools and activities for measure validation using Rasch models: part II–validation activities. J Appl Meas 2007;8:204–234.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hahn EA, Cella D. Measuring patient satisfaction and dissatisfaction. In: Bezruczko N editor. Rasch measurement in health sciences. Maple Grove: JAM Press; 2005. p 132–151.
   Google Scholar
• Stone MH. Substantive scale construction In: Smith EVJr & Smith RM editors Introduction to Rasch measurement: Theory, models and applications. Maple Grove: JAM Press; 2004. p 201–225.
   Google Scholar
• Yamaguchi J. Positive vs. negative wording: PCA of residuals. Rasch Meas Trans 1997;11:567.
   Google Scholar
• Manchikanti L, Singh V, Datta S, Cohen SP, Hirsch JA; American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians. Comprehensive review of epidemiology, scope, and impact of spinal pain. Pain Physician 2009;12:E35–E70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brabyn J, Schneck M, Haegerstrom-Portnoy G, Lott L. The Smith-Kettlewell Institute (SKI) longitudinal study of vision function and its impact among the elderly: an overview. Optom Vis Sci 2001;78:264–269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teresi JA. Different approaches to differential item functioning in health applications. Advantages, disadvantages and some neglected topics. Med Care 2006;44:S152–S170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angoff WH. Perspectives on differential item functioning methodology. In: Holland PW & Wainer H editors Differential item functioning. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum 1993 p3–24.
   Google Scholar
• Wang W-C, Wilson M. Local item dependence for items across tests connected by a common stimuli. Educ Psychol Meas 2005;65:5–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burger H, Franchignoni F, Kotnik S, Giordano A. A Rasch-based validation of a short version of ABILHAND as a measure of manual ability in adults with unilateral upper limb amputation. Disabil Rehabil 2009;31:2023–2030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott NW, Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bottomley A, de Graeff A, Groenvold M, Gundy C, et al.; EORTC Quality of Life Group; Quality of Life Cross-Cultural Meta-Analysis Group. A simulation study provided sample size guidance for differential item functioning (DIF) studies using short scales. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:288–295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stucki G, Ewert T, Cieza A. Value and application of the ICF in rehabilitation medicine. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:932–938.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar