↓ Skip to main content

Rasch analysis holds no brief for the use of the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) in Chinese neurodermatitis patients

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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 holds no brief for the use of the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) in Chinese neurodermatitis patients
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12955-016-0419-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yale Liu, Tian Li, Jingang An, Weihui Zeng, Shengxiang Xiao

Abstract

The Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) is the most widely used measure of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) associated with skin disease. Recently, the psychometric properties of the DLQI have caused some controversy because the instrument appears not to meet the requirements of modern test theory. The purpose of this study was to assess whether these psychometric issues also occur in Chinese patients with neurodermatitis. One hundred fifty consecutive outpatients (83 males and 67 females) seeking treatment for neurodermatitis were assessed for eligibility for this prospective study between July 1, 2011 and September 30, 2011. The DLQI and a demographic questionnaire were completed. One female participant who incompletely answered the DLQI was excluded. Data were analyzed using the Rasch model in order to obtain meaningful scores for the DLQI. Scale assessment included analysis of rating scale function, item fit to the Rasch model, aspects of person-response validity, unidimensionality, person-separation reliability, and differential item function. The rating scale advanced monotonically for all items in the DLQI, but item 9 did not demonstrate acceptable goodness-of-fit (Infit MnSq values >1.3) to the Rasch model. The 10 items of the DLQI met the criteria for person-separation reliability (PSI = 2.38) and the first latent dimension (general QoL) accounted for 50.8 % of the variance; but the variance explained by the second dimension (7.1 %) exceeded the criterion of 5 %. There were also limitations related to person-response validity, because ≥ 5 % (18.1 %) of cases demonstrated unacceptable fit. There was no uniform differential item functioning. For neurodermatitis patients, the DLQI seems to have poor fit to the Rasch model; therefore, we recommend against using this instrument with neurodermatitis patients.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 18 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Psychology 3 7%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 18 41%
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 05 February 2016.
All research outputs
#15,355,821
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,304
of 2,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,664
of 397,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#16
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 397,089 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.