Observational studyJournal of athletic training2020
Invariance Testing of the Disablement in the Physically Active Scale.
Observational study in Journal of athletic training, 2020. 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.
- Disablement in the Physically Active Scale Short Form-8: psychometric evaluation.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextThe increased emphasis on implementing evidence-based practice has reinforced the need to more accurately assess patient improvement. Psychometrically sound, patient-reported outcome measures are essential for evaluating patient care. A patient-reported outcome instrument that may be useful for clinicians is the Disablement in the Physically Active Scale (DPAS). Before adopting this scale, however, researchers must evaluate its psychometric properties, particularly across subpopulations.
objectiveTo evaluate the psychometric properties of the DPAS in a large sample using confirmatory factor analysis procedures and assess structural invariance of the scale across sex, age, injury status, and athletic status groups.
designObservational study.
settingTwenty-two clinical sites. PATIENTS OR OTHER
participantsOf 1445 physically active individuals recruited from multiple athletic training clinical sites, data from 1276 were included in the analysis. Respondents were either healthy or experiencing an acute, subacute, or persistent musculoskeletal injury. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): A confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the full sample, and multigroup invariance testing was conducted to assess differences across sex, age, injury status, and athletic status. Given the poor model fit, alternate model generation was used to identify a more parsimonious factor structure.
resultsThe DPAS did not meet contemporary fit index recommendations or the criteria to demonstrate structural invariance. We identified an 8-item model that met the model fit recommendations using alternate model generation.
conclusionsThe 16-item DPAS did not meet the model fit recommendations and may not be the most parsimonious or reliable measure for assessing disablement and quality of life. Use of the 16-item DPAS across subpopulations of interest is not recommended. More examination involving a true cross-validation sample should be completed on the 8-item DPAS before this scale is adopted in research and practice.
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.