ArticleRasch analysis for outcomes measures: some methodological considerations
References (24)
- et al.
The critical path method in stroke rehabilitation: lessons from an experiment in cost containment and outcome improvement
Qual Rev Bull
(1993) - et al.
Relationships between impairment and physical disability as measured by the Functional Independence Measure
Arch Phys Med Rehabil
(1993) - et al.
The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure
Arch Phys Med Rehabil
(1994) - et al.
A validation of the Functional Independence Measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients
Arch Phys Med Rehabil
(1993) - et al.
Measuring functional status in rehabilitation
Phys Med Rehabil Clin North Am
(1993) - et al.
Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10): I. Unidimensionality and reproducibility of the Rasch item scale
J Clin Epidemiol
(1994) Measurement-related problems in functional assessment
Am J Occup Ther
(1993)- et al.
Observations are always ordinal; measurement, however, must be interval
Arch Phys Med Rehabil
(1989) - et al.
Rasch analysis of functional assessment scales: an example using pain behaviors
Arch Phys Med Rehabil
(1991)
Performance profiles of the functional independence measure
Am J Phys Med Rehabil
(1993)
Assessment of motor and process skills in normal young children with dyspraxia
Occup Ther J Res
(1992)
Cited by (53)
Examining the validity and reliability of the Taita symptom checklist using Rasch analysis
2015, Journal of the Formosan Medical AssociationImprovements in visual ability with first-eye, second-eye, and bilateral cataract surgery measured with the Visual Symptoms and Quality of Life Questionnaire
2011, Journal of Cataract and Refractive SurgeryLongitudinal stability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper extremity
2008, Archives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationRasch analysis of three versions of the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire
2008, Manual TherapyCitation Excerpt :DIF by time (the first and second administrations of the test) was tested so that the responses at the two administrations could be pooled, provided no DIF by time was evident.( Chang and Chan, 1995) For the DIF analysis the sample is divided into three equal-sized groups or “class intervals” classifying persons of low, medium and high ability. Uniform DIF is exhibited when there is a consistent deviation of observed from expected responses across all class intervals.
Trajectories of Life Satisfaction in the First 5 Years Following Traumatic Brain Injury
2009, Rehabilitation Psychology
No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the authors or upon any organization with which the authors are associated.
Copyright © 1995 Published by Elsevier Inc.