Rasch validation and refinement of the Lymphedema Life Impact Scale version 2 in an Italian cohort with secondary lymphedema

References

• Greene AK, Goss JA. Diagnosis and staging of lymphedema. Semin Plast Surg. 2018;32(1):12–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moffatt CJ, Franks PJ, Doherty DC, et al. Lymphoedema: an underestimated health problem. QJM. 2003;96(10):731–738.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McWayne J, Heiney SP. Psychologic and social sequelae of secondary lymphedema: a review. Cancer. 2005;104(3):457–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keast DH, Despatis M, Allen JO, et al. Chronic oedema/lymphoedema: under-recognised and under-treated. Int Wound J. 2015;12(3):328–333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paramanandam VS, Lee MJ, Kilbreath SL, et al. Self-reported questionnaires for lymphoedema: a systematic review of measurement properties using COSMIN framework. Acta Oncol. 2021;60(3):379–391.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beelen LM, van Dishoeck AM, Tsangaris E, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in lymphedema: a systematic review and COSMIN analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(3):1656–1668.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schaverien MV, Offodile AC, 2nd, Gibbons C. Patient-reported outcome measures in lymphedema: a systematic review and COSMIN analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(3):1273–1274.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weiss J, Daniel T. Validation of the lymphedema life impact scale (LLIS): a condition-specific measurement tool for persons with lymphedema. Lymphology. 2015;48(3):128–138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss J, Daniel T. Validation of the lymphedema life impact scale version 2: a condition specific measurement tool for persons with lymphedema. Rehab Oncol. 2018;36(1):28–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abu Sharour L. Psychometric evaluation of the Arabic version of the lymphedema life impact scale in breast cancer patients. Breast J. 2020;26(3):563–565.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Değirmenci B, Tüzün Ş, Of NS, et al. Reliability and validity of Turkish version of lymphedema life impact scale. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;65(2):147–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orhan C, Üzelpasaci E, Baran E, et al. The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the lymphedema life impact scale in patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema. Cancer Nurs. 2020;43(5):375–383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiser I, Mehrara BJ, Coriddi M, et al. Preoperative assessment of upper extremity secondary lymphedema. Cancers. 2020;12(1):135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coriddi M, Kim L, McGrath L, et al. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the LLIS and ULL27 in detecting breast cancer-related lymphedema. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29(1):438–445.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrillo J, Cano SJ, McLeod LD, et al. Using classical test theory, item response theory, and rasch measurement theory to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures: a comparison of worked examples. Value Health. 2015;18(1):25–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond TG, Yan Z, Heene M. Applying the Rasch model – fundamental measurement in the human sciences, 4th ed. New York: Routledge; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Szuba A, Rockson SG. Lymphedema: classification, diagnosis and therapy. Vasc Med. 1998;3(2):145–156.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grada AA, Phillips TJ. Lymphedema: pathophysiology and clinical manifestations. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77(6):1009–1020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Executive Committee of the International Society of Lymphology. The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema: 2016 consensus document of the international society of lymphology. Lymphology. 2016;49:170–184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michelini S, Cestari M, Ricci M, et al. Italian guidelines on lymphedema: new public regulations 2017. J Theor Appl Vasc Res. 2016;1(2):119–123.
   Google Scholar
• Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Content validity‐‐establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient‐reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 2‐assessing respondent understanding. Value Health. 2011;14(8):978–988.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terwee CB, Prinsen CA, Chiarotto A, et al. COSMIN methodology for assessing the content validity of PROMs – user manual, version 1.0; 2018; [cited 2022 Aug 12] Available from: https://www.cosmin.nl/wp-content/uploads/COSMIN-methodology-for-content-validity-user-manual-v1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C, et al. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. the Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29(6):602–608.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Padua R, Padua L, Ceccarelli E, et al. Italian version of the disability of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation. J Hand Surg Br. 2003;28(2):179–186.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Lott SA, et al. The lower extremity functional scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American orthopaedic rehabilitation research network. Phys Ther. 1999;79(4):371–383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacchio A, De Blasis E, Necozione S, et al. The Italian version of the lower extremity functional scale was reliable, valid, and responsive. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):550–557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use, 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, et al. Measurement in medicine. A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NY: Pearson Education International; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Zou GY. Sample size formulas for estimating intraclass correlation coefficients. Stat Med. 2012;31(29):3972–3981.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. A user’s guide to Winsteps Ministep. Rasch-model computer programs. Program Manual 5.3.0. Chicago, IL: Winsteps.com. 2022; [cited 2022 Apr 22] Available from: https://www.winsteps.com/a/Winsteps-Manual.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Boone WJ, Staver JR, Yale MS. Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Dordrecht: Springer; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen KB, 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
• Petrillo J, Bressler NM, Lamoureux E, et al. Development of a new Rasch-based scoring algorithm for the national eye institute visual functioning questionnaire to improve its interpretability. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):157.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, et al. Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):524–534.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41(5):582–592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, et al. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner D, Schünemann HJ, Griffith LE, et al. Using the entire cohort in the receiver operating characteristic analysis maximizes precision of the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(4):374–379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reise SP, Waller NG, Comrey AL. Factor analysis and scale revision. Psychol Assess. 2000;12(3):287–297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeve BB, Hays RD, Bjorner JB, 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–S31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teresi JA, Ocepek-Welikson K, Ramirez M, et al. Evaluation of the measurement properties of the perceived stress scale (PSS) in hispanic caregivers to patients with Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders. Int Psychogeriatr. 2020;32(9):1073–1084.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar