Evidence of internal construct validity of SOC-13 total score, for use in hand therapy

References

• Cieza A, Causey K, Kamenov K, et al. Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the global burden of disease study 2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. Lancet. 2021;396(10267):2006–2017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wade DT. What is rehabilitation? An empirical investigation leading to an evidence-based description. Clin Rehabil. 2020;34(5):571–583.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cederlund RI, Ramel E, Rosberg HE, et al. Outcome and clinical changes in patients 3, 6, 12 months after a severe or major hand injury–can sense of coherence be an indicator for rehabilitation focus? BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:286–296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustafsson M, Ahlstrom G. Problems experienced during the first year of an acute traumatic hand injury - a prospective study. J Clin Nurs. 2004;13(8):986–995.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustafsson M, Hagberg L, Holmefur M. Ten years follow-up of health and disability in people with acute traumatic hand injury: pain and cold sensitivity are long-standing problems. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2011;36(7):590–598.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• de Putter CE, Selles RW, Haagsma JA, et al. Health-related quality of life after upper extremity injuries and predictors for suboptimal outcome. Injury. 2014;45(11):1752–1758.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen A, Kristensen HK, Cederlund R, et al. An occupation-based intervention in patients with hand-related disorders grouped using the sense of coherence scale-a randomized controlled trial. J Hand Ther. 2020;33(4):455–469.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosberg HE. Disability and health after replantation or revascularisation in the upper extremity in a population in Southern Sweden - a retrospective long time follow up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:73–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antonovsky A. Unraveling the mystery of health: how people manage stress and stay well. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Mittelmark MB, Bauer GF, Vaandrager L, et al. The handbook of salutogenesis. Switzerland: Springer; 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Antonovsky A. The structure and properties of the sense of coherence scale. Soc Sci Med (1982). 1993;36(6):725–733.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimby G, Tennant A, Tesio L. The use of raw scores from ordinal scales: time to end malpractice? J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(2):97–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorter R, Fox J, Twisk J. Why item response theory should be used for longitudinal questionnaire data analysis in medical research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrich D, Marais I. A course in rasch measurement therory. In: Measuring in the educational, social and health sciences. Singapore: Springer; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen K, Kreiner S, Mesbar M. Rasch models in health. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Feldt T, Lintula H, Suominen S, et al. Structural validity and temporal stability of the 13-item sense of coherence scale: prospective evidence from the population-based HeSSup study. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(3):483–493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drageset J, Haugan G. Psychometric properties of the orientation to life questionnaire in nursing home residents. Scand J Caring Sci. 2016;30(3):623–630.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindblad C, Sandelin K, Petersson LM, et al. Stability of the 13-item sense of coherence (SOC) scale: a longitudinal prospective study in women treated for breast cancer. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):753–760.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson M, Mittelmark M, et al. The sense of coherence and its measurement. In: Mittelmark M, Sagy S, Eriksson M, editors. The handbook of salutogenesis. Switzerland: Springer; 2017. p. 97–106.
   Google Scholar
• Rajesh G, Eriksson M, Pai K, et al. The validity and reliability of the sense of coherence scale among indian university students. Glob Health Promot. 2016;23(4):16–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naaldenberg J, Tobi H, van den Esker F, et al. Psychometric properties of the OLQ-13 scale to measure sense of coherence in a community-dwelling older population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakano J, Yajima Y. [Factor structure of the SOC scale 13-item version in Japanese university students]. Jpn J Public Health. 2005;52:34–45.
   Google Scholar
• Lerdal A, Fagermoen M, Bonsaksen T, et al. Rasch analysis of the sense of coherence scale in a sample of people with morbid obesity - a cross-sectional study. BMC Psychol. 2014;2(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/2050-7283-2-1
   Google Scholar
• Lerdal A, Opheim R, Gay CL, et al. Psychometric limitations of the 13-item sense of coherence scale assessed by rasch analysis. BMC Psychol. 2017;5(1):18–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Holmefur M, Sundberg K, Wettergren L, et al. Measurement properties of the 13-item sense of coherence scale using rasch analysis. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(6):1455–1463.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagquist C, Andrich D. Is the sense of cohernce-instrument applicable on adolescents? A latent trait analysis using. Personal Indiv Diff. 2004;36(4):955–968.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marais I, Andrich D. Formalizing dimension and response violations of local independence in the unidimensional rasch model. J Appl Meas. 2008;9(3):200–215.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marais I, Andrich D. Effects of varying magnitude and patterns of response dependence in the unidimensional rasch model. J Appl Meas. 2008;9(2):105–124.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Christensen K, Makransky G, Horton M. Critical values for yen’s Q3: identification of local dependence in the rasch model using residual correlations. Appl Psychol Meas. 2017;41(3):178–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reise S. The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behav Res. 2012;47(5):667–696.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quinn HO. Bifactor models, explained common variance (ECV), and the usefulness of scores from unidimensional item response theory analyses. Chapel Hill (NC): University of North Carolina; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Kreiner S. Validity and objectivity: reflections on the role and nature of rasch models. Nordic Psychology. 2007;59(3):268–298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maritz R, Tennant A, Fellinghauer C, et al. 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maritz R, Tennant A, Fellinghauer C, on behalf of the NRP74 StARS clinics, et al. The extended bathel index (EBI) can be reported as a unidimentional interval-scale metric - a psychometric study. Phys Med Rehab Kuror. 2019;29(04):224–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrich D. Components of variance of scales with a bifactor subscale structure from two calculations of alpha. Educ Measure. 2016;35(4):25–30.
   Google Scholar
• Wainer H, Kiely G. Item clusters and computer adaptive testing: a case for testlets. J Educ Measure. 1987;24(3):185–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuerlinckx F, De Boeck P. The effect of ignoring item interactions on the estimated discrimination parameters in item response theory. Psychol Methods. 2001;6(2):181–195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen AØ, Cederlund R, Kristensen HK, et al. The effect of an occupation-based intervention in patients with hand-related disorders grouped using the sense of coherence scale: Study protocol. Hand Therapy. 2016;21(3):90–99.
   Google Scholar
• Andrich D, Sheridan B, Luo G. RUMM2030: an MS windows computer program for the analysis of data according to rasch unidimensional models for measurement. Perth: RUMM Laboratory, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Masters G. A rasch model for partal credit scoring. Psychometrika. 1982;47(2):149–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagell P. Testing rating scale unidimensionality using the principal component analyses (PCA)/t-test protocol with the rasch model: the primacy of theory over statistics. OJS. 2014;04(06):456–465.
   Google Scholar
• Hagquist C, Andrich D. Recent advances in analysis of differential item functioning in health research using the rasch model. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):181.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Andrich D, Sheridan B, Luo G. RUMM2030: Rasch unidimensional models for measurement. Interpreting RUMM2030 part III estimation and statistical techniques. Perth: RUMM Laboratory, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher WP. Reliability statistics. Rasch Meas Trans. 1992;6:238.
   Google Scholar
• Sharma B. A focus on reliability in developmental research through cronbach’s alpha among medical, dental and paramedical professionals. APJHS. 2016;3(4):271–278.
   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):205–231.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Andrich D, de Jong J, Sheridan B. Diagnostic opportunities with the rasch model for ordered response categories. In: Rost J, Langeheine R, editors. Applications of latent trait and latent class model in the social sciences. Munster, Germany: Waxmann; 1997. p. 59–70.
   Google Scholar
• Andrich D, Hagquist C. Real and artificial differential item functioning in polytomous items. Educ Psychol Meas. 2015;75(2):185–207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suh Y. Effect size measures for differential item functioning in a multidimensional IRT model. Journal Educ Meas. 2016;53(4):403–430.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouquette A, Hardouin JB, Vanhaesebrouck A, et al. Differential item functioning (DIF) in composite health measurement scale: recommendations for characterizing DIF with meaningful consequences within the rasch model framework. PloS One. 2019;14(4):e0215073.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Hagell P and Westergren A. Sample size and statistical conclusions from tests of fit to the rasch model According to the rasch unidimensional measurement model (rumm) program in health outcome measurement. J Appl Measure. 2016;17:416–431.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Prodinger B, Hammond A, Tennant A, et al. Revisiting the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) and QuickDASH in rheumatoid arthritis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):41.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lundgren Nilsson Å, Tennant A. Past and present issues in rasch analysis: the functional independence measure (FIM™) revisited. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(10):884–891.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hockwälder J. Sense of coherence: Notes on some challenges for future research. SAGE Open. 2019;9(2).
   Google Scholar
• Eriksson M, Lindstrom B. Validity of antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59(6):460–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar