↓ Skip to main content

Rasch analysis of the patient-rated wrist evaluation questionnaire

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Physiotherapy, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Rasch analysis of the patient-rated wrist evaluation questionnaire
Published in
Archives of Physiotherapy, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40945-018-0046-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saravanan Esakki, Joy C. MacDermid, Joshua I. Vincent, Tara L. Packham, David Walton, Ruby Grewal

Abstract

The Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) was developed as a wrist joint specific measure of pain and disability and evidence of sound validity has been accumulated through classical psychometric methods. Rasch analysis (RA) has been endorsed as a newer method for analyzing the clinical measurement properties of self-report outcome measures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the PRWE using Rasch modeling. We employed the Rasch model to assess overall fit, response scaling, individual item fit, differential item functioning (DIF), local dependency, unidimensionality and person separation index (PSI). A convenience sample of 382 patients with distal radius fracture was recruited from the hand and upper limb clinic at large academic healthcare organization, London, Ontario, Canada, 6-month post-injury scores of the PRWE was used. RA was conducted on the 3 subscales (pain, specific activities, and usual activities) of the PRWE separately. The pain subscale adequately fit the Rasch model when item 4 "Pain - When it is at its worst" was deleted to eliminate non-uniform DIF by age group, and item 5 "How often do you have pain" was rescored by collapsing into 8 intervals to eliminate disordered thresholds. Uniform DIF for "Use my affected hand to push up from the chair" (by work status) and "Use bathroom tissue with my affected hand" (by injured hand) was addressed by splitting the items for analysis. After background rescoring of 2 items in pain subscale, 2 items in specific activities and 3 items in usual activities, all three subscales of the PRWE were well targeted and had high reliability (PSI = 0.86). These changes provided a unidimensional, interval-level scaled measure. Like a previous analysis of the Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation, this study found the PRWE could be fit to the Rasch model with rescoring of multiple items. However, the modifications required to achieve fit were not the same across studies, our fit statistics also suggested one of the pain items should be deleted. This study adds to the pool of evidence supporting the PRWE, but cannot confidently provide a Rasch-based scoring algorithm.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 20%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 17 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 April 2018.
All research outputs
#7,313,090
of 25,836,587 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Physiotherapy
#86
of 161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,049
of 345,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Physiotherapy
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,836,587 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,147 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.