Cargando…

Agreement between original and Rasch-approved neck disability index

BACKGROUND: Given the high prevalence of neck pain, the neck disability index (NDI) has been used to evaluate patient status and treatment outcomes. Modified versions were proposed as solutions to measurement deficits in the NDI. However, the original 10-item NDI was scored out of 50 and is still th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lu, Ze, MacDermid, Joy C., Nazari, Goris
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7333341/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32620096
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01069-w
_version_ 1783553732510744576
author Lu, Ze
MacDermid, Joy C.
Nazari, Goris
author_facet Lu, Ze
MacDermid, Joy C.
Nazari, Goris
author_sort Lu, Ze
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Given the high prevalence of neck pain, the neck disability index (NDI) has been used to evaluate patient status and treatment outcomes. Modified versions were proposed as solutions to measurement deficits in the NDI. However, the original 10-item NDI was scored out of 50 and is still the most frequently administered version. Examining the extent of agreement between traditional and Rasch-based versions using Bland-Altman (B&A) plots will inform our understanding of score differences that might rise from using different versions. Therefore, the objective of current study was to describe the extent of agreement between different versions of NDI. METHODS: The current study was a secondary data analysis. The study data was compiled from two prospectively collected data sources. We performed a comprehensive literature search to identify Rasch approved NDI within four databases including Embase, Medline, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Alternate forms and scorings were compared to each other and to the standard NDI. We graphed B&A plots and calculated the mean difference and the 95% limits of agreement (LoA; ±1.96 times the standard deviation). RESULTS: Two Rasch approved alternative versions (8 vs 5 items) were identified from 303 screened publications. We analyzed data from 201 (43 males and 158 females) patients attending community clinics for neck pain. We found that the mean difference was approximately 10% of the total score between the 10-item and 5-item (− 4.6 points), whereas the 10-item versus 8-item and 8-item versus 5-item had smaller mean differences (− 2.3 points). The B&A plots displayed wider 95% LoA for the agreement between 10-item and 8-item (LoA: − 12.0, 7.4) and 5-item (LoA: − 14.9, 5.8) compared with the LoA for the 8-item and 5-item (LoA: − 7.8, 3.3). CONCLUSION: Two Rasch-based NDI solutions (8 vs 5 items) which differ in number of items and conceptual construction are available to provide interval level scoring. They both provide scores that are substantially different from the ordinal NDI, which does not provide interval level scoring. Smaller differences between the two Rasch solutions exist and may relate to the items included. Due to the size and unpredictable nature of the bias between measures, they should not be used interchangeably.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7333341
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73333412020-07-06 Agreement between original and Rasch-approved neck disability index Lu, Ze MacDermid, Joy C. Nazari, Goris BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Given the high prevalence of neck pain, the neck disability index (NDI) has been used to evaluate patient status and treatment outcomes. Modified versions were proposed as solutions to measurement deficits in the NDI. However, the original 10-item NDI was scored out of 50 and is still the most frequently administered version. Examining the extent of agreement between traditional and Rasch-based versions using Bland-Altman (B&A) plots will inform our understanding of score differences that might rise from using different versions. Therefore, the objective of current study was to describe the extent of agreement between different versions of NDI. METHODS: The current study was a secondary data analysis. The study data was compiled from two prospectively collected data sources. We performed a comprehensive literature search to identify Rasch approved NDI within four databases including Embase, Medline, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Alternate forms and scorings were compared to each other and to the standard NDI. We graphed B&A plots and calculated the mean difference and the 95% limits of agreement (LoA; ±1.96 times the standard deviation). RESULTS: Two Rasch approved alternative versions (8 vs 5 items) were identified from 303 screened publications. We analyzed data from 201 (43 males and 158 females) patients attending community clinics for neck pain. We found that the mean difference was approximately 10% of the total score between the 10-item and 5-item (− 4.6 points), whereas the 10-item versus 8-item and 8-item versus 5-item had smaller mean differences (− 2.3 points). The B&A plots displayed wider 95% LoA for the agreement between 10-item and 8-item (LoA: − 12.0, 7.4) and 5-item (LoA: − 14.9, 5.8) compared with the LoA for the 8-item and 5-item (LoA: − 7.8, 3.3). CONCLUSION: Two Rasch-based NDI solutions (8 vs 5 items) which differ in number of items and conceptual construction are available to provide interval level scoring. They both provide scores that are substantially different from the ordinal NDI, which does not provide interval level scoring. Smaller differences between the two Rasch solutions exist and may relate to the items included. Due to the size and unpredictable nature of the bias between measures, they should not be used interchangeably. BioMed Central 2020-07-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7333341/ /pubmed/32620096 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01069-w Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Lu, Ze
MacDermid, Joy C.
Nazari, Goris
Agreement between original and Rasch-approved neck disability index
title Agreement between original and Rasch-approved neck disability index
title_full Agreement between original and Rasch-approved neck disability index
title_fullStr Agreement between original and Rasch-approved neck disability index
title_full_unstemmed Agreement between original and Rasch-approved neck disability index
title_short Agreement between original and Rasch-approved neck disability index
title_sort agreement between original and rasch-approved neck disability index
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7333341/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32620096
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01069-w
work_keys_str_mv AT luze agreementbetweenoriginalandraschapprovedneckdisabilityindex
AT macdermidjoyc agreementbetweenoriginalandraschapprovedneckdisabilityindex
AT nazarigoris agreementbetweenoriginalandraschapprovedneckdisabilityindex