A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Psychometrics of the observational scales of the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation (USER): Content and structural validity, internal consistency and reliability. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Introduction: Establish content and structural validity, internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and measurement error of the physical and cognitive scales of the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation clinical Rehabilitation (USER) in geriatric rehabilitation.

Material And Methods: First, an expert consensus-meeting (N=7) was organised for content validity wherein scale content validity index (CVI) was measured. Second, in a sample of geriatric rehabilitation patient structural validity (N=616) was assessed by confirmatory factor analyses for exploring unidimensionality. Cut-off criteria were: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤0.08; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) ≥0.95. Local independence (residual correlation<0.20) and monotonicity (H-coefficient ≥0.30 and H-coefficient ≥0.50) were also calculated. Cronbach alphas were calculated for internal consistency. Alpha's > 0.7 was considered adequate. Third, two nurses independently administered the USER to 37 patients. Intraclass-correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated for inter-rater reliability (IRR), standard error of measurement (SEM) and Smallest Detectable Change (SDC).

Results: The CVI for physical functioning was moderate (0.73) and excellent for cognitive functioning (0.97). Structural validity physical scale was acceptable (CFI;0.95, TLI;0.93, RMSEA;0.07, ECV;0.78, OmegaH;0.87; Monotonicity;(H;0.52-0.75 and H;0.63)). Cognitive scale was good (CFI;0.98, TLI;0.96, RMSEA;0.05, ECV;0.66 and OmegaH;0.90. Monotonicity;(H;0.30 -0.70 and H0.61)). Cronbach's alpha were high: physical scale;0.92 and cognitive scale;0.94. Reliability physical scale ICC;0.94, SEM;5 and SDC;14 and cognitive scale ICC;0.88, SEM;5 and SDC;13.

Conclusion: The observational scales of the USER have shown sufficient content and structural validity, internal consistency, and interrater reliability for measuring physical and cognitive function in geriatric rehabilitation.

Trial Registration: N/A.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2021.104509DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

structural validity
12
scales utrecht
8
utrecht scale
8
scale evaluation
8
rehabilitation user
8
content structural
8
validity internal
8
internal consistency
8
content validity
8
validity
5

Similar Publications