TY - JOUR
T1 - Cross-Cultural Validity and Differential Item Functioning of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey with Swedish and United States Users of Lower-Limb Prosthesis
AU - Jarl, Gustav
AU - Heinemann, Allen W.
AU - Lindner, Helen Y.
AU - Norling Hermansson, Liselotte M.
N1 - Funding Information:
Supported for the collection of data in the United States by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research through the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Prosthetics and Orthotics (grant no. H133E080009) and supported for the collection of data in Sweden by the Center for Rehabilitation Research and the Research Committee at Örebro County Council, Norrbacka-Eugenia Foundation, and Örebro University.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine.
PY - 2015/9/1
Y1 - 2015/9/1
N2 - Objectives To investigate the cross-cultural validity of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey (OPUS), to evaluate differential item functioning (DIF) related to country, sex, age, amputation level, and amputated side (unilateral, bilateral), and to determine known-group validity of the OPUS. Design Survey. Setting Outpatient clinics. Participants The sample (N=321) consisted of Swedish (n=195) and U.S. (n=126) adults using lower-limb prostheses. Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Four OPUS modules were used: lower extremity functional status, client satisfaction with device (CSD), client satisfaction with services (CSS), and health-related quality of life. Rasch analysis was used to calculate measures for persons and items. Results The cross-cultural validity was satisfactory. Many items demonstrated DIF related to country and demographic characteristics, but the impact on mean person measures was negligible. The rating scales of CSD and CSS needed adjustments, and the unidimensionality of CSD and CSS was weak. The differences between the mean measures of known patient groups were statistically significant for 2 out of 6 comparisons. Conclusions This study supports the validity of OPUS measure comparisons between Sweden and the United States and between subgroups with different demographic characteristics. Some of the country-related DIF may reflect the different health care financing systems. The findings demonstrate that the OPUS can discriminate between certain patient groups. The results also challenge some of our preconceptions about persons with bilateral amputation, indicating that we might know these persons less well than we think.
AB - Objectives To investigate the cross-cultural validity of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey (OPUS), to evaluate differential item functioning (DIF) related to country, sex, age, amputation level, and amputated side (unilateral, bilateral), and to determine known-group validity of the OPUS. Design Survey. Setting Outpatient clinics. Participants The sample (N=321) consisted of Swedish (n=195) and U.S. (n=126) adults using lower-limb prostheses. Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Four OPUS modules were used: lower extremity functional status, client satisfaction with device (CSD), client satisfaction with services (CSS), and health-related quality of life. Rasch analysis was used to calculate measures for persons and items. Results The cross-cultural validity was satisfactory. Many items demonstrated DIF related to country and demographic characteristics, but the impact on mean person measures was negligible. The rating scales of CSD and CSS needed adjustments, and the unidimensionality of CSD and CSS was weak. The differences between the mean measures of known patient groups were statistically significant for 2 out of 6 comparisons. Conclusions This study supports the validity of OPUS measure comparisons between Sweden and the United States and between subgroups with different demographic characteristics. Some of the country-related DIF may reflect the different health care financing systems. The findings demonstrate that the OPUS can discriminate between certain patient groups. The results also challenge some of our preconceptions about persons with bilateral amputation, indicating that we might know these persons less well than we think.
KW - Artificial limbs
KW - Cross-cultural comparison
KW - Outcome assessment (health care)
KW - Rehabilitation
KW - Validation studies as topic
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84940462314&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84940462314&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.03.003
DO - 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.03.003
M3 - Article
C2 - 25804528
AN - SCOPUS:84940462314
SN - 0003-9993
VL - 96
SP - 1615
EP - 1626
JO - Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation
JF - Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation
IS - 9
ER -