ArticleSpine2015
Item response theory analysis of the modified Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire in a population-based study.
Article in Spine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire: one or more dimensions?European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designThis is a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional population-based survey.
objectiveShorten the modified 23-item Roland (mRoland) scale using item response theory (IRT) methods and describe where in the functional disability range each scale is the most precise. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire is recommended for a functional disability outcome measure in patients with low back pain (LBP). One commonly used version is the Roland. It is unknown where in the functional disability range the Roland measures.
methodsOne candidate individual with LBP in randomly selected households was interviewed, identifying 694 adults with chronic LBP. To justify the use of a unidimensional 2-parameter logistic IRT model, we performed both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.
resultsExploratory factor analysis revealed one dominant eigenvalue. Confirmatory factor analysis results indicate that the 1-factor model fit well. IRT analysis revealed variability in the slopes, in the range from 1.07 to 3.10. The marginal reliability, an IRT-based analog to coefficient α, was 0.88. The mRoland produces reliable scores (i.e., with a standard error <0.3) from 1.4 standard deviations below the mean to roughly 0.2 above the mean.
conclusionThe mRoland measures one construct. The mRoland seems to be an excellent tool for measuring just-below-average levels of functional disability. The mRoland measures high levels of functional disability with relatively poor reliability and may be more appropriate for a less-disabled population with LBP. We demonstrate that the mRoland can be shortened to 11 items with minimal loss of information. We show that there are different ways to go about selecting the set of 11 items that yield short forms with different strengths. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.