Objective To examine dimensionality, reliability and validity of the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale-revised (ALSFRS-R) using traditional classical test theory methods and Rasch analysis in order to provide a rationale for possible improvement of its metric quality. Methods Methodological research on ALSFRS-R collected in a consecutive sample of 485 patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) attending three tertiary ALS centres. Results The ALSFRS-R items showed good internal consistency but dimensionality analysis argues against the use of ALSFRS-R as a single score because the scale lacks unidimensionality. Parallel analysis and exploratory factor analysis revealed three factors representing the following domains: (1) bulbar function; (2) fine and gross motor function; and (3) respiratory function. Rasch analysis showed that all items in each domain fitted the respective constructs to measure, except for item No 9 ‘climbing stairs’ and item No 12 ‘respiratory insufficiency’. Rating categories did not comply with the criteria for category functioning. Collapsing the scale's 5 level ratings into 3 levels improved its metric quality. Conclusions The ALSFRS-R fails to satisfy rigorous measurement standards and should be, at least in part, revised. At present, ALSFRS-R should be considered as a profile of mean scores from three different domains (bulbar, motor and respiratory functions) more than a global total score. Further studies on ALSFRS-R using modern psychometric methods are warranted to confirm our findings and refine the metric quality of this scale, through a step by step process.

Evidence of multidimensionality in the ALSFRS-R Scale: a critical appraisal on its measurement properties using Rasch analysis.

CHIO', Adriano
2013-01-01

Abstract

Objective To examine dimensionality, reliability and validity of the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale-revised (ALSFRS-R) using traditional classical test theory methods and Rasch analysis in order to provide a rationale for possible improvement of its metric quality. Methods Methodological research on ALSFRS-R collected in a consecutive sample of 485 patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) attending three tertiary ALS centres. Results The ALSFRS-R items showed good internal consistency but dimensionality analysis argues against the use of ALSFRS-R as a single score because the scale lacks unidimensionality. Parallel analysis and exploratory factor analysis revealed three factors representing the following domains: (1) bulbar function; (2) fine and gross motor function; and (3) respiratory function. Rasch analysis showed that all items in each domain fitted the respective constructs to measure, except for item No 9 ‘climbing stairs’ and item No 12 ‘respiratory insufficiency’. Rating categories did not comply with the criteria for category functioning. Collapsing the scale's 5 level ratings into 3 levels improved its metric quality. Conclusions The ALSFRS-R fails to satisfy rigorous measurement standards and should be, at least in part, revised. At present, ALSFRS-R should be considered as a profile of mean scores from three different domains (bulbar, motor and respiratory functions) more than a global total score. Further studies on ALSFRS-R using modern psychometric methods are warranted to confirm our findings and refine the metric quality of this scale, through a step by step process.
2013
84
12
1340
1345
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2012-304701
ALS
F. Franchignoni;G. Mora;A. Giordano;P. Volanti;A. Chiò
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
F. Franchignoni;G. Mora;A. Evidence of multidimensionality 2013.pdf

Accesso riservato

Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 575.29 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
575.29 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/135500
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 54
  • Scopus 125
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 116
social impact