2008
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-6-47
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cross-diagnostic validity of the Nottingham health profile index of distress (NHPD)

Abstract: Background: The Nottingham Health Profile index of Distress (NHPD) has been proposed as a generic undimensional 24-item measure of illness-related distress that is embedded in the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP). Data indicate that the NHPD may have psychometric advantages to the 6-dimensional NHP profile scores. Detailed psychometric evaluations are, however, lacking. Furthermore, to support the validity of the generic property of outcome measures evidence that scores can be interpreted in the same manner in … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0
3

Year Published

2010
2010
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
17
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…This will, for example, allow for rigorous testing of whether it is possible to derive linear measures based on raw total scores. Importantly, Rasch analysis will enable firmer determination of the scale's generic properties by testing whether items work the same way in various respondent groups [33].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This will, for example, allow for rigorous testing of whether it is possible to derive linear measures based on raw total scores. Importantly, Rasch analysis will enable firmer determination of the scale's generic properties by testing whether items work the same way in various respondent groups [33].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The anchoring approach requires that the common linking items be free of DIF, [21][22][23] which was not the case in our dataset. Therefore, the co-calibration approach, also applied in previous rehabilitation studies, [24][25][26][27] was followed and the analysis process is illustrated in figure 1. The first step in the data analysis was to co-calibrate the ABILHAND data of all diagnostic groups by analysing all responses (n=732) to the 83 items.…”
Section: Analysis Processmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The clinical significance of any observed DIF was studied by assessing how DIF influenced the estimated person locations (logit measures). Items without DIF in the original scale were first anchored by their item locations from the DIF-adjusted scale to assure that the two sets of person estimates were on the same metric (19). The two sets of person locations were then compared and correlated to assess the influence of DIF on people's estimated fatigue levels.…”
Section: Data Completeness and Rasch Model Fitmentioning
confidence: 99%