The Arm Function in Multiple Sclerosis Questionnaire (AMSQ): development and validation of a new tool using IRT methods

References

• Fox RJ, Thompson A, Baker D, et al. Setting a research agenda for progressive multiple sclerosis: the International Collaborative on Progressive MS. Mult Scler 2012;18:1534–40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), and Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). 2007. Guidance for Industry patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/5460dft.pdf [last accessed 26 Feb 2013]
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medical products; 2009. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003637.pdf [last accessed 26 Feb 2013]
   Google Scholar
• Hobart JC, Riazi A, Lamping DL, et al. Measuring the impact of MS on walking ability: the 12-Item MS Walking Scale (MSWS-12). Neurology 2003;60:31–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansson E, Lexell J. Performance of activities of daily living in multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil 2004;26:576–85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellamy N, Campbell J, Haraoui B, et al. Clinimetric properties of the AUSCAN Osteoarthritis Hand Index: an evaluation of reliability, validity and responsiveness. Osteoarthrit Cartilage 2002;10:863–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellamy N, Campbell J, Haraoui B, et al. Dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability in hand osteoarthritis: development of the Australian/Canadian (AUSCAN) Osteoarthritis Hand Index. Osteoarthrit Cartilage 2002;10:855–62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penta M, Thonnard JL, Tesio L. ABILHAND: a Rasch-built measure of manual ability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:1038–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levine DW, Simmons BP, Koris MJ, et al. A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993;75:1585–92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand. Am J Ind Med 1996;29:602–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. Available from: www.neuroqol.org [last accessed 12 May 2014]
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization: ICF. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001
   Google Scholar
• Little RJ, Rubin DB. Statistical analysis with missing data. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Wiley; 2002
   Google Scholar
• Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000;25:3186–91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK. Handbook of modern item response theory. New York (NY): Springer; 1997
   Google Scholar
• Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2000
   Google Scholar
• Wirth RJ, Edwards MC. Item factor analysis: current approaches and future directions. Psychol Methods 2007;12:58–79
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mplus (Version 6.1) [Computer software]. Los Angeles (CA): Muthén & Muthén; 2010
   Google Scholar
• Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equat Model 1999;6:1–55
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• University of Connecticut, CT, USA. Available from: www.davidakenny.net/cm/fit.html [last accessed 8 Jun 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Sijtsma K. On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach's alpha. Psychometrika 2009;74:107–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock RD, Aitkin M. Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika 1981;46:443–5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock RD, Mislevy RJ. Adaptive EAP estimation of ability in a microcomputer environment. Appl Psychol Measure 1982;6:431–44
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scientific Software International. IRTPRO: user's guide. Lincolnwood (IL): Scientific Software International, Inc.; 2012
   Google Scholar
• Orlando M, Thissen D. Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Appl Psychol Measure 2000;24:50–64
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlando M, Thissen D. Further investigation of the performance of S - X2: an item fit index for use with dichotomous item response theory models. Appl Psychol Measure 2003;27:289–98
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlando M, Thissen D, Teresi J, et al. Identification of differential item functioning using item response theory and the likelihood-based model comparison approach: application to the Mini-Mental State Examination. Med Care 2006;44:S134–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Van Nispen RMA, Kramer SE. Improving the quality and applicability of the Dutch scales of the communication profile for the hearing impaired using item response theory. JSLHR 2010;53:556–71
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh HW, Hau KT, Wen Z. In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Struct Equat Model 2004;11:320–41
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Available from: https://www.assessmentcenter.net/documents/InstrumentLibrary.pdf [last accessed 12 Jul 2013]
   Google Scholar
• Reise SP, Yu J. Parameter recovery in the graded response model using MULTILOG. JEM 1990;27:133–44
   Google Scholar
• Van der Linden FAH, Kragt JJ, Hobart JC, et al. The size of the treatment effect: do patients and proxies agree? BMC Neurol 2009;9:12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorans NJ. Linking scores from multiple health outcome instruments. Qual Life Res 2007;16S1:85–94
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar