↓ Skip to main content

Measurement of change in health status with Rasch models

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
Measurement of change in health status with Rasch models
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12955-014-0197-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pasquale Anselmi, Giulio Vidotto, Ornella Bettinardi, Giorgio Bertolotti

Abstract

The traditional approach to the measurement of change presents important drawbacks (no information at individual level, ordinal scores, variance of the measurement instrument across time points), which Rasch models overcome. The article aims to illustrate the features of the measurement of change with Rasch models. To illustrate the measurement of change using Rasch models, the quantitative data of a longitudinal study of heart-surgery patients (N = 98) were used. The scale "Perception of Positive Change" was used as an example of measurement instrument. All patients underwent cardiac rehabilitation, individual psychological intervention, and educational intervention. Nineteen patients also attended progressive muscle relaxation group trainings. The scale was administered before and after the interventions. Three Rasch approaches were used. Two separate analyses were run on the data from the two time points to test the invariance of the instrument. An analysis was run on the stacked data from both time points to measure change in a common frame of reference. Results of the latter analysis were compared with those of an analysis that removed the influence of local dependency on patient measures. Statistics t, χ(2) and F were used for comparing the patient and item measures estimated in the Rasch analyses (a-priori α = .05). Infit, Outfit, R and item Strata were used for investigating Rasch model fit, reliability, and validity of the instrument. Data of all 98 patients were included in the analyses. The instrument was reliable, valid, and substantively unidimensional (Infit, Outfit < 2 for all items, R = .84, item Strata range = 3.93-6.07). Changes in the functioning of the instrument occurred across the two time, which prevented the use of the two separate analyses to unambiguously measure change. Local dependency had a negligible effect on patient measures (p ≥ .8674). Thirteen patients improved, whereas 3 worsened. The patients who attended the relaxation group trainings did not report greater improvement than those who did not (p = .1007). Rasch models represent a valid framework for the measurement of change and a useful complement to traditional approaches.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 99 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 22%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Researcher 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 24 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 21%
Psychology 13 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Social Sciences 9 9%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 25 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 February 2015.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#2,114
of 2,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#309,358
of 361,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#31
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 361,202 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.