Index > Vol. 37/2005 > Iss. 6/November > pp. 346-352 > Abstract
 

Differential item functioning of the functional independence measure in higher performing neurological patients

Issue: Volume 37, Issue 6, November 2005

Pages: 346-352

DOI: 10.1080/16501970510038284

Abstract:

Objective: When comparing outcomes of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM™) between patient groups, item characteristics of the FIM™ should be consistent across groups. The purpose of this study was to compare item difficulty of the FIM™ in 3 patient groups with neurological disorders.Subjects: Patients with stroke (n=295), multiple sclerosis (n=150), and traumatic brain injury (n=88).Methods: FIM™ scores were administered in each group. The FIM™ consists of a motor domain (13 items) and a cognitive domain (5 items). Rasch rating scale analysis was performed to investigate differences in item difficulty (differential item functioning) between groups.Results: Answering categories of the FIM™ items were reduced to 3 (from the original 7) because of disordered thresholds and low answering frequencies. Two items of the motor domain (“bladder” and “bowel”) did not fit the Rasch model. For 7 out of the 11 fitting motor items, item difficulties were different between groups (i.e. showed differential item functioning). All cognitive items fitted the Rasch model, and 4 out of 5 cognitive items showed differential item functioning.Conclusion: Differential item functioning is present in several items of both the motor and cognitive domain of the FIM™. Adjustments for differential item functioning may be required when FIM™ data will be compared between groups or will be used in a pooled data analysis.

Authors:

Annet J. Dallmeijer A1, A2, Joost Dekker A1, A2, Leo D. Roorda A1, A2, Dirk L. Knol A2, A3, Bianca Van Baalen A4, Vincent De Groot A1, A2, Vera P. M. Schepers A5, Gustaaf J. Lankhorst A1, A2
A1 Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam
A2 Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine (EMGO Institute), VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam
A3 Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam
A4 Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam
A5 Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Key words:

disability evaluation, neurological disorders, Rasch analysis, rehabilitation

References:

  1. Wade, D.(1992) Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
  2. Silverstein, B and Kilgore, K and Fisher, W and Harley, J and Harvey, R. (1991) Applying psychometric criteria to functional assessment in medical rehabilitation: I. Exploring unidimensionality Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 72, pp. 631 - 637.
  3. Streiner, D and Norman, G.(1995) Health measurement scales 2nd. Oxford : Oxford Medical Publications.
  4. Wright, B and Linacre, J and Smith, R and Heinemann, A and Granger, C. (1997) FIM measurement properties and Rasch model details Scand J Rehabil Med, 29, pp. 267 - 272.
  5. Tesio, L. (2003) Measuring behaviours and perceptions: Rasch analysis as a tool for rehabilitation research J Rehabil Med, 35, pp. 105 - 115.
    [CrossRef] [Taylor & Francis]
  6. Granger, C and Hamilton, B and Linacre, J and Heinemann, A and Wright, B. (1993) Performance profiles of the functional independence measure Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 72, pp. 84 - 89.
  7. Linacre, J and Heinemann, A and Wright, B and Granger, C and Hamilton, B. (1994) The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 75, pp. 127 - 132.
  8. Hamilton, B and Granger, C and Sherwin, F and Zielezny, M and Teshman, J.(2003) Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurements. In A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. ( pp. 137 - 147 ). Baltimore : Brookes.
  9. Keith, R and Granger, C and Hamilton, B and Sherwin, F. (1987) The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation Adv Clin Rehabil, 1, pp. 6 - 18.
  10. Heinemann, A and Linacre, J and Wright, B and Hamilton, B and Granger, C. (1993) Relationships between impairment and physical disability as measured by the functional independence measure Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 74, pp. 566 - 573.
    [CrossRef]
  11. Stineman, M and Shea, J and Jette, A and Tassoni, C and Ottenbacher, K and Fiedler, R and (1996) The Functional Independence Measure: tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 77, pp. 1101 - 1108.
    [CrossRef]
  12. Brock, K and Goldie, P and Greenwood, K. (2002) Evaluating the effectiveness of stroke rehabilitation: choosing a discriminative measure Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 83, pp. 92 - 99.
    [CrossRef]
  13. Chang, W and Chan, C. (1995) Rasch analysis for outcomes measures: some methodological considerations Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 76, pp. 934 - 939.
    [CrossRef]
  14. Tsuji, T and Sonoda, S and Domen, K and Saitoh, E and Liu, M and Chino, N. (1995) ADL structure for stroke patients in Japan based on the functional independence measure Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 74, pp. 432 - 438.
  15. Hawley, C and Taylor, R and Hellawell, D and Pentland, B. (1999) Use of the functional assessment measure (FIM+FAM) in head injury rehabilitation: a psychometric analysis J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 67, pp. 749 - 754.
  16. Sharrack, B and Hughes, R and Soudain, S and Dunn, G. (1999) The psychometric properties of clinical rating scales used in multiple sclerosis Brain, 122, pp. 141 - 159.
    [CrossRef]
  17. Dickson, H and Kohler, F. (1996) The multi-dimensionality of the FIM motor items precludes an interval scaling using Rasch analysis Scand J Rehabil Med, 28, pp. 159 - 162.
  18. Kucukdeveci, A and Yavuzer, G and Elhan, A and Sonel, B and Tennant, A. (2001) Adaptation of the Functional Independence Measure for use in Turkey Clin Rehabil, 15, pp. 311 - 319.
    [CrossRef]
  19. Tennant, A and Penta, M and Tesio, L and Grimby, G and Thonnard, J and Slade, A and (2004) Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through differential item functioning within the framework of the Rasch model: the PRO-ESOR project Med Care, 42, pp. I37 - I48. suppl
  20. Nunnally, J and Bernstein, I.(1994) Psychometric theory 3rd. New York : McGraw-Hill.
  21. Kim, J and Mueller, C.(1996) Introduction to factor analysis what it is and how to do it. Beverly Hills CA: Sage Publications.
  22. Andrich, D. (1978) A rating formulation for ordered response categories Psychometrika, 43, pp. 561 - 573.
    [CrossRef] [SpringerLink]
  23. Wright, B and Linacre, J and Gustafson, J and Martin-Löf, P. (1994) Reasonable mean-square fit values Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(3), pp. 370.
  24. Linacre, J and Wright, B.(1998) A user's guide to BIGSTEPS: Rasch-model computer program. Chicago : MESA Press.
  25. Teasdale, G and Jennett, B. (1974) Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale Lancet, 2, pp. 81 - 84.
  26. Silverstein, B and Fisher, W and Kilgore, K and Harley, J and Harvey, R. (1992) Applying psychometric criteria to functional assessment in medical rehabilitation: II. Defining interval measures Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 73, pp. 507 - 518.