For best results switch to Advanced Search. |
Article Detail |
Return to Search Results | ||||||||||||
ID | 23948 | ||||||||||||
Title | Exploring the construct validity of the Patient Perception Measure – Osteopathy (PPM-O) using classical test theory and Rasch analysis | ||||||||||||
URL | http://www.chiromt.com/content/23/1/6 | ||||||||||||
Journal | Chiropr & Manual Ther. 2015 ;23(6):Online access only 12 p | ||||||||||||
Author(s) | |||||||||||||
Subject(s) | |||||||||||||
Peer Review | Yes | ||||||||||||
Publication Type | Article | ||||||||||||
Abstract/Notes | Background: Evaluation of patients’ experience of their osteopathic treatment has recently been investigated leading to the development of the Patient Perception Measure – Osteopathy (PPM-O). The aim of the study was to investigate the construct validity of the PPM-O. Methods: Patients presenting to osteopathy student-led teaching clinics at two Australian universities were asked to complete two questionnaires after their treatment: a demographic questionnaire and the PPM-O. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch analysis were used to investigate the construct validity of the PPM-O. Results: Data from the present study did not fit the a-priori 6-domain structure in the CFA. Modifications to the 6-domain model were then made based on the CFA results, and this analysis identified two factors: 1) Education & Information (9 items); and 2) Cognition & Fatigue (6 items). These two factors were Rasch analysed individually. Two items were removed from the Cognition & Fatigue factor during the analysis. The two factors independently were unidimensional. Conclusions: The study produced a 2-factor, 13-item questionnaire that assesses the patients’ perception of their osteopathic treatment using the items from a previous questionnaire. The results of the current study provide evidence for the construct validity of the PPM-O and the small number of items makes it feasible to implement into both clinical and research settings. Further research is now required to establish the measures’ validity in a variety of patient populations. This abstract is reproduced with permission of the publisher. Click on the above link for free full text.
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Text (Citation)
Tagged (Export)
Excel
|
|||||||||||||
|