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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Factorial structure of the locomotor disability scale in a sample of adults with mobility impairments in Bangladesh
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12955-018-0903-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ilias Mahmud, Lynda Clarke, Nazmun Nahar, George B. Ploubidis |
| Abstract |
Disability does not only depend on individuals' health conditions but also the contextual factors in which individuals live. Therefore, disability measurement scales need to be developed or adapted to the context. Bangladesh lacks any locally developed or validated scales to measure disabilities in adults with mobility impairment. We developed a new Locomotor Disability Scale (LDS) in a previous qualitative study. The present study developed a shorter version of the scale and explored its factorial structure. We administered the LDS to 316 adults with mobility impairments, selected from outpatient and community-based settings of a rehabilitation centre in Bangladesh. We did exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine a shorter version of the LDS and explore its factorial structure. We retained 19 items from the original LDS following evaluation of response rate, floor/ceiling effects, inter-item correlations, and factor loadings in EFA. The Eigenvalues greater than one rule and the Scree test suggested a two-factor model of measuring locomotor disability (LD) in adults with mobility impairment. These two factors are 'mobility activity limitations' and 'functional activity limitations'. We named the higher order factor as 'locomotor disability'. This two-factor model explained over 68% of the total variance among the LD indicators. The reproduced correlation matrix indicated a good model fit with 14% non-redundant residuals with absolute values > 0.05. However, the Chi-square test indicated poor model fit (p < .001). The Bartlett's test of Sphericity confirmed patterned relationships amongst the LD indicators (p < .001). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure (KMO) of sampling adequacy was .94 and the individual diagonal elements in the anti-correlation matrix were > .91. Among the retained 19 items, there was no correlation coefficient > .9 or a large number of correlation coefficients < .3. The communalities were high: between .495 and .882 with a mean of 0.684. As an evidence of convergent validity, we had all loadings above .5, except one. As an evidence of discriminant validity, we had no strong (> .3) cross loadings and the correlation between the two factors was .657. The 'mobility activity limitations' and 'functional activity limitations' sub-scales demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha were .954 and .937, respectively). The 19-item LDS was found to be a reliable and valid scale to measure the latent constructs mobility activity limitations and functional activity limitations among adults with mobility impairments in outpatient and community-based settings in Bangladesh. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Bangladesh | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 21% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 6% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 21% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,417,376
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,181
of 2,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,400
of 326,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#64
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,188 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. 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 326,410 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.