» Articles » PMID: 18684327

The Cervical Dystonia Impact Profile (CDIP-58): Can a Rasch Developed Patient Reported Outcome Measure Satisfy Traditional Psychometric Criteria?

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Public Health
Date 2008 Aug 8
PMID 18684327
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are currently producing guidelines for the scientific adequacy of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical trials, which will have implications for the selection of scales used in future clinical trials. In this study, we examine how the Cervical Dystonia Impact Profile (CDIP-58), a rigorous Rasch measurement developed neurologic PROM, stands up to traditional psychometric criteria for three reasons: 1) provide traditional psychometric evidence for the CDIP-58 in line with proposed FDA guidelines; 2) enable researchers and clinicians to compare it with existing dystonia PROMs; and 3) help researchers and clinicians bridge the knowledge gap between old and new methods of reliability and validity testing.

Methods: We evaluated traditional psychometric properties of data quality, scaling assumptions, targeting, reliability and validity in a group of 391 people with CD. The main outcome measures used were the CDIP-58, Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36, the 28-item General Health Questionnaire, and Hospital and Anxiety and Depression Scale.

Results: A total of 391 people returned completed questionnaires (corrected response rate 87%). Analyses showed: 1) data quality was high (low missing data < or = 4%, subscale scores could be computed for > 96% of the sample); 2) item groupings passed tests for scaling assumptions; 3) good targeting (except for the Sleep subscale, ceiling effect = 27%); 4) good reliability (Cronbach's alpha > or = 0.92, test-retest intraclass correlations > or = 0.83); and 5) validity was supported.

Conclusion: This study has shown that new psychometric methods can produce a PROM that stands up to traditional criteria and supports the clinical advantages of Rasch analysis.

Citing Articles

Content overlap of 91 dystonia symptoms among the seven most commonly used cervical dystonia scales.

Chrobak A, Rusinek J, Dec-Cwiek M, Porebska K, Siwek M Neurol Sci. 2023; 45(4):1507-1514.

PMID: 37910323 PMC: 10943139. DOI: 10.1007/s10072-023-07157-1.


Longitudinal Follow-Up of Mood in Cervical Dystonia and Influence on Age at Onset.

Moriarty A, Rafee S, Ndukwe I, ORiordan S, Hutchinson M Mov Disord Clin Pract. 2022; 9(5):614-618.

PMID: 35844277 PMC: 9274366. DOI: 10.1002/mdc3.13457.


Illness Perceptions, Coping, Health-Related Quality of Life and Psychological Outcomes in Cervical Dystonia.

OConnor S, Hevey D, OKeeffe F J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2022; 30(1):129-142.

PMID: 35438357 PMC: 10042972. DOI: 10.1007/s10880-022-09851-2.


Low-Dose Neubotulinum Toxin A versus Low-Dose Abobotulinum Toxin A Injection for the Treatment of Cervical Dystonia: A Multicenter, 48-Week, Prospective, Double-Blinded, Randomized Crossover Design Study.

Kongsaengdao S, Arayawithchanont A, Samintharapanya K, Rojanapitayakorn P, Maneeton B, Maneeton N Toxins (Basel). 2021; 13(10).

PMID: 34678987 PMC: 8541224. DOI: 10.3390/toxins13100694.


Clinimetric testing of the comprehensive cervical dystonia rating scale.

Comella C, Perlmutter J, Jinnah H, Waliczek T, Rosen A, Galpern W Mov Disord. 2016; 31(4):563-9.

PMID: 26971359 PMC: 4833533. DOI: 10.1002/mds.26534.


References
1.
McHorney C, TARLOV A . Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?. Qual Life Res. 1995; 4(4):293-307. DOI: 10.1007/BF01593882. View

2.
McHorney C, Ware Jr J, Lu J, Sherbourne C . The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care. 1994; 32(1):40-66. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199401000-00004. View

3.
McHorney C, Haley S, Ware Jr J . Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning Scale (PF-10): II. Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997; 50(4):451-61. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00424-6. View

4.
Andrich D . Controversy and the Rasch model: a characteristic of incompatible paradigms?. Med Care. 2004; 42(1 Suppl):I7-16. DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000103528.48582.7c. View

5.
Norquist J, Fitzpatrick R, Dawson J, Jenkinson C . Comparing alternative Rasch-based methods vs raw scores in measuring change in health. Med Care. 2004; 42(1 Suppl):I25-36. DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000103530.13056.88. View