Journal of the Korean Data and Information Science Society

The Korean Data and Information Science Society (한국데이터정보과학회)
권호 표지

Rasch analysis to the Copenhagen neck functional disability scale with neck pain subjects

경부통증 대상자에 대한 코펜하겐 경부기능장애척도의 래쉬 분석

  • Kim, Tae-Ho (Department of Physical Therapy, Daegu Health College) ;
  • Gong, Won-Tae (Department of Physical Therapy, Daegu Health College) ;
  • Park, So-Yeon (Department of Physical Therapy, Jeonju University)
  • 김태호 (대구보건대학 물리치료과) ;
  • 공원태 (대구보건대학 물리치료과) ;
  • 박소연 (전주대학교 물리치료학과)
  • Published : 2009.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the category function, the item structure, and the model-data fit of the Copenhagen neck functional disability scale (CNFDS) with neck pain subjects using Rasch rating scale analysis. The data was obtained from the assessments of 71 college students with neck pain. The 'concentration' item showed misfit and fourteen items were founds to be fits for self-reporting of disability due to neck pain. The most difficult item of the remaining 14 items was 'help' and the easiest item was 'social contact'. The subjects and items reliability of separation reliability were 0.85 and 0.97. The CNFDS for self-reporting of disability due to mild neck pain has been proved valid and reliable. This study is suggested that individuals with mild neck pain may be used the modified CNFDS that were not included 'concentration' item and were adjusted the 2 response levels.

본 연구의 목적은 래쉬 분석을 통해 한글로 번역된 3점 척도의 코펜하겐 경부기능장애척도가 경부 통증을 가진 연구대상자에게 설문의 선택보기로 적합한가와 각 문항이 경부 통증을 측정하는데 적합한지 신뢰도와 난이도를 알아보는 것이었다. 코펜하겐 경부기능장애척도의 15개 항목 중 '집중력' 항목을 제외하고 나머지 항목은 일상생활의 장애정도를 평가하기에 적합하였다. 평가 항목 중 '사회적 접촉' 항목이 가장 쉬운 항목이었으며, '도움' 항목이 가장 어려운 항목이었다. 코펜하겐 경부기능장애척도의 3점 척도보다는 '예'와 '아니오'로 응답하는 2점 척도가 3점 척도에 비해서 각 범주가 영역별로 잘 구분이 되어지고 난이도가 분명한 것으로 나타났으며, 항목과 대상자의 분리신뢰도가 비교적 높은 평가 척도인 것으로 나타났다. 경한 경부 통증을 가진 대상자들에게는 기존의 15개 항목의 경부 장애척도 설문지보다는 '집중력' 항목을 제외한 14개 항목으로 만들어진 수정된 코펜하겐 경부기능장 애척도를 활용하는 것이 더 바람직 할 것이다. 따라서 14개의 항목 구성과 2점 척도로 수정된 코펜하겐 경부기능장애척도는 경한 경부 통증을 가진 대상자에게는 신뢰도와 타당도가 높은 도구로써 일상 생활의 장애정도를 측정하기에 적당할 것으로 사료된다.

Keywords

References

  1. 정혁, 노은이 (2005). Rasch 평정척도 모형을 이용한 외향성 척도 분석. <한국스포츠리서치>, 16, 949-956.
  2. 최영웅, 강기훈 (2009). 의학연구논문에서 통계적 기법의 활용. <한국데이터정보과학회지>, 20, 357-367.
  3. BenDebba, M., Heller, J., Ducker, T. B. and Eisinger, J. M. (2002). Cervical spine outcomes questionnaire: Its development and psychometric properties. Spine, 27, 2116-2123; discussion 24. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200210010-00007
  4. Bolton, J. E. and Humphreys, B. K. (2002). The bournemouth questionnaire: A short-form comprehensive outcome measure II. Psychometric properties in neck pain patients. Journal of Manipulative & Physiological Therapeutics, 25, 141-148. https://doi.org/10.1067/mmt.2002.123333
  5. Cho, M. S. and Kim, S. K. (2008). Comparative study on statistical packages analyzing survival model -SAS, SPSS, STATA-. Korean data & Information Science Society, 19, 487-496.
  6. Cook, C. E., Richardson, J. K., Pietrobon, R., Braga, L., Silva, H. M. and Turner, D. (2006). Validation of the nhanes adl scale in a sample of patients with report of cervical pain: Factor analysis, item response theory analysis, and line item validity. Disability and Rehabilitation, 28, 929-935. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280500404263
  7. Davidson, M. (2008). Rasch analysis of three viersions of the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Manual Therapy, 13, 222-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2007.01.008
  8. Jordan, A., Manniche, C., Mosdal, C. and Dindsberger, C. (1998). The copenhagen neck functional disability scale: A study of reliability and validity. Journal of Manipulative & Physiological Therapeutics, 21, 520-527.
  9. Kornetti, D. L., Fritz, S. L., Chiu, Y. P., Light, K. E. and Velozo, C. A. (2004). Rating scale analysis of the Berg Balance Scale. Archives Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85, 1128-1135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2003.11.019
  10. Leak, A. M., Cooper, J., Dyer, S., Williams, K. A., Turner-Stokes, L. and Frank, A. O. (1994). The northwick park neck pain questionnaire, devised to measure neck pain and disability. British Journal of Rheumatology, 33, 469-474. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/33.5.469
  11. Park, S. and Yi, C. (2005). Scaling of the Korean version of the GMFM. Physical Therapy Korea, 12, 20-25.
  12. Pinfold, M., Niere, K. R., O’Leary, E. F., Hoving, J. L., Green, S. and Buchbinder, R. (2002). Validity and internal consistency of a whiplash-specific disability measure. Spine, 29, 263-268.
  13. Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests, Chicago, University Chicago Press.
  14. Vernon, H. and Mior, S. (1991). The neck disability index: A study of reliability and validity. Journal of Manipulative & Physiological Therapeutics, 14, 409-415.
  15. Wheeler, A. H., Goolkasian, P., Baird, A. C. and Darden, B. V. (1999). Development of the neck pain and disability scale. Item analysis, face, and criterion-related validity. Spine, 24, 1290-1294. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199907010-00004
  16. White, P., Lewith, G. and Prescott, P. (2004). The core outcomes for neck pain: Validation of a new outcome measure. Spine, 29, 1923-1930. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000137066.50291.da
  17. Willis, C., Niere, K. R,, Hoving, J. L., Green, S. O’Leary, E. F. and Buchbinder, R. (2004). Reproducibility and responsiveness of the whiplash disability questionnaire. Pain, 110, 681-688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2004.05.008
  18. Wlodyka-Demaille, S., Poiraudeau, S., Catanzariti, J. F., Rannou, F., Fermanian, J. and Revel, M. (2002). French translation and validation of 3 functional disability scales for neck pain. Archives Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, 376-382. https://doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2002.30623