Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of Rasch with Likert scoring to discriminate between patients' evaluations of total hip replacement surgery

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine whether there are advantages in terms of outcome assessment of using Rasch methods of scoring the 12-item Oxford Hip Score (OHS) questionnaire over conventionally Likert scores. As part of a prospective cohort study of total hip replacements in five former regions of England the OHS was sent to patients pre-operatively, at 3 months and 1 year post-operatively. Post-operative data was collected on over 5000 cases. Based on the level of satisfaction with surgery, patients were divided into satisfied and dissatisfied. Analyses were performed to test the relative precision (RP) of Rasch scoring vs. conventionally Likert scores in discriminating the groups experiencing different level of satisfaction. Considerable gains in precision were achieved with Rasch scoring methods when groups were compared 3 and 12 months post-operatively. The results from the current study suggest that in some situations there may be substantial gains in measuring health related outcomes using Rasch-based scoring methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wampold BE. The promising advantages of Rasch. Rasch Meas Trans 1999; 13(2): 695.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating Scale Analysis. Chicago: MESA Press, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wright BD, Stone MH. Best Test Design. Chicago: MESA Press, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Wright BD, Linacre JM. Observations are always ordinal, measurements, however, must be interval. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989; 70(12): 857-860.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Granger CV, Deutsch A, Linn R. Rasch analysis of the functional independence measure (FIM) mastery test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998; 79: 52-57.

    Google Scholar 

  6. MacKnight C, Rockwood K. Rasch analysis of the hierarchical assessment of balance and mobility (HABAM). J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 1224-1242.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hays RD, Morales L, Reise S. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 2000; 38: S28-S42.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fitzpatrick R, Shortall E, Sculpher M, et al. Primary total hip replacement surgery: A systematic review of outcomes and modelling of cost-effectiveness associated with different prostheses. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2(20): 1-64.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB, Langeland N, Vollset SE. Patient satisfaction and function after primary and revision total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 1998; (351): 135-148.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bayley KB, London MR, Grunkmeier GL, Lensky DJ. Measuring the success of treatment in patient terms. Med Care 1995; 33(suppl 4): AS226-AS235.

    Google Scholar 

  11. McHorney CA, Haley SM, Ware JE, Jr. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10): II. Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50(4): 451-461.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Raczek AE, Ware JE, Bjorner JB, et al. Comparison of Rasch and summated rating scales constructed from SF-36 physical functioning items in seven countries: Results from the IQOLA project. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51(11): 1203-1214.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Morris R, Fitzpatrick R, Hajat S, et al. Primary total hip replacement: Variations in patient management in Oxford & Anglia, Trent, Yorkshire & Northern ‘Regions’. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2001; 83: 190-196.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hajat S, Fitzpatrick R, Morris R, et al. Does waiting for total hip replacement matter? Prospective cohort study. J Health Serv Res Policy 2002; 7(1): 19-25.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Comparison of measures to assess outcomes in total hip replacement surgery. Qual Health Care 1996; 5: 81-88.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996; 78: 185-190.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Norquist JM, Fitzpatrick R, Dawson J, Jenkinson C. Comparing alternative Rasch-based methods vs. raw scores in measuring change in health. Med Care 2004; 42(Suppl 1): I25-36.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. The problem of ‘Noise’ in monitoring patient-assessed outcomes: Generic, disease-specific and site-specific instruments for total hip replacement. J Health Serv Res Policy 1996; 1(4): 224-231.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fitzpatrick R, Dawson J. Health-related quality of life and the assessment of outcomes of total hip replacement surgery. Psychol Health 1997; 12: 793-803.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dawson J, Jameson-Shortall E, et al. Issues relating to long-term follow-up in hip arthroplasty surgery — A review of 598 cases at 7 year comparing prostheses using revision rates, survival analysis, and patient-based measures. J Arthroplasty 2000; 15(6): 710-717.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fitzpatrick R, Morris R, Hajat S, et al. The value of short and simple measures to assess outcomes for patients of total hip replacement surgery. Qual Health Care 2000; 9: 146-150.

    Google Scholar 

  22. McMurray R, Heaton J, Sloper P, Nettleton S. Measurement of patient perceptions of pain and disability in relation to total hip replacement: The place of the Oxford hip score in mixed methods. Qual Health Care 1999; 8: 228-233.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Shepperd S, Harwood D, Jenkinson C, Gray A, Vessey M, Morgan P. Randomised controlled trial comparing hospital at home care with inpatient hospital care. I: Three month follow up of health outcomes. BMJ 1998; 316(7147): 1786-1791.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ludlow LH, Haley SM. Rasch model logits: Interpretation, use, and transformation. Educ Psychol Meas 1995; 55: 967-975.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fayers P, Machin D. Quality of Life — Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. Wiley, 2000.

  26. Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2001.

  27. Wright BD, Linacre JM, Gustafson J-E, Martin-Lof P. Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Meas Trans 1994; 8(3): 370.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Smith EV, Jr. Understanding Rasch measurement: Metric development and score reporting in Rasch measurement. J App Meas 2000; 1(3): 303-326.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Efron B, Tibshirani R. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman JH. The Elements of Statistical Learning, Springer, 2001.

  31. Linacre JM, Wright BD, A user's guide to WINSTEPS: Rasch model computer program. Chicago: MESA Press, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Van Alphen A, Halfens R, Hasman A, Imbos T. Likert or Rasch? nothing is more applicable than good theory. J Adv Nursing 1994; 20: 196-201.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Birbeck GL, Kim S, Hays RD, Vickrey BG. Quality of life measures in epilepsy. How well can they detect change over time? Neurology 2000; 54(5): 1822-1827.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wolfe F. Which HAQ is best? A comparison of the HAQ, MHAQ and RA-HAQ, a difficult 8 item HAQ (DHAQ), and a rescored 20 item HAQ (HAQ20): Analyses in 2491 rheumatoid arthritis patients following leflunomide initiation. J Rheumatol 2001; 28: 982-989.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ritter M, Albohm MJ. Overview: Maintaining outcomes for total hip arthroplasty. The past, present, and future. Clin Orthop 1997; 344: 81-87.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pacault-Legendre V, Courpied JP. Survey of patient satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty of the Hip. Int Orthop 1999; 23: 23-30.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mahomed N, Liang M, Cook EF, et al. The importance of patient expectations in predicting functional outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. J Rheumatol 2002; 29: 1273-1279.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Smith RM, Schumacker RE, Bush MJ. Using item mean squares to evaluate fit to the Rasch model. J Outcome Meas 1998; 2(1): 66-78.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wright BD. Reliability and separation. Rasch Meas Trans 1996; 9(4): 472.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wolfe EW, Chiu CW. Measuring pretest-posttest change with a Rasch rating scale model. J Outcomes Meas 1999; 3(2): 134-161.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wolfe EW, Chiu CW. Measuring change across multiple occasions using the Rasch rating scale model. J Outcome Meas 1999; 3(4): 360-381.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Fischer GH, Ponocny I. Extended rating scale and partial credit models for assessing change. In: Fischer GH, Molenaar IW (eds), Rasch Models — Foundations, Recent Developments and Applications. Berlin: Springer ed. 1996; 353-370.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Fischer GH. Linear logistic models for change. In: Fischer GH, Molenaar IW (eds), Rasch Models — Foundations, Recent Developments and Applications. Berlin: Springer ed. 1996; 157-180.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Health, Institute of Health Sciences, University of Oxford, UK

    R. Fitzpatrick & J.M. Norquist

  2. Department of Public Health, Health Services Research Unit, University of Oxford, UK

    C. Jenkinson

  3. Picker Institute Europe, UK

    C. Jenkinson

  4. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK

    B.C. Reeves

  5. Royal Free and University College Medical School, London, UK

    R.W. Morris

  6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford, UK

    D.W. Murray

  7. South Tees Hospital NHS Trust Middlesborough General Hospital, UK

    P.J. Gregg

Authors
  1. R. Fitzpatrick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J.M. Norquist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Jenkinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B.C. Reeves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R.W. Morris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. D.W. Murray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. P.J. Gregg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fitzpatrick, R., Norquist, J., Jenkinson, C. et al. A comparison of Rasch with Likert scoring to discriminate between patients' evaluations of total hip replacement surgery. Qual Life Res 13, 331–338 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000018489.25151.e1

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000018489.25151.e1

Search

Navigation