| 1. |
- Svensson, J., et al.
(författare)
-
The DISABKIDS generic and diabetes-specific modules are valid but not directly comparable between Denmark, Sweden, and Norway
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Pediatric Diabetes. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1399-543X .- 1399-5448. ; 21:5, s. 900-908
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background/Objectives: Government guidance promote benchmarking comparing quality of care including both clinical values and patient reported outcome measures in young persons with type 1 diabetes. The aim was to test if the Nordic DISABKIDS health-related quality of life (HrQoL) modules were construct valid and measurement comparable within the three Nordic countries. Methods: Data from three DISABKIDS validation studies in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway were compared using Rasch and the graphical log-linear Rasch modeling. Monte Carlo methods were used to estimate reliability coefficient and target was defined as the point with the lowest SE of the mean. Self-report data were available from 99 Danish (8-18 years), 103 Norwegian (7-19 years), and 131 Swedish (8-18 years) young people. Results: For the DISABKIDS higher scores on most subscales were noted in the Norwegian population. The Swedish sample had a significantly higher score on the “Diabetes treatment” subscale and scores closer to optimal target than the other countries. For each country, construct validity and sensitivity were acceptable when accounting for differential item function (DIF) and local dependency (LD). Less LD and DIF were found if only Denmark and Norway were included. The combined model was reliable; however, some differences were noted in the scale translations relating to the stem and response alternatives, which could explain the discrepancies. Conclusion: The Nordic versions of the DISABKIDS questionnaires measures valid and reliable HrQoL both within and between countries when adjusted for DIF and LD. Adjusting the Likert scales to the same respond categories may improve comparability.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Berntson, L., et al.
(författare)
-
Construct validity of ILAR and EULAR criteria in juvenile idiopathic arthritis : a population based incidence study from the Nordic countries. International League of Associations for Rheumatology. European League Against Rheumatism
- 2001
-
Ingår i: Journal of Rheumatology. - 0315-162X .- 1499-2752. ; 28:12, s. 2737-43
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: New classification criteria (ILAR) have been proposed for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). They are more descriptive than those formerly used [American College of Rheumatology (ACR), European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)], but require validation against classifications already in use. We validated the ILAR criteria in relation to the EULAR criteria in a prospective, incidence, and population based setting, and analyzed their feasibility. METHODS: Construct validity of ILAR and EULAR classification criteria refers to how closely the 2 instruments are related and how each of them operates in classifying subgroups/categories. Twenty doctors in 5 Nordic countries collected data from the incidence cases within their catchment areas during an 18 month period beginning July 1, 1997. Clinical and serological data from the first year of disease were collected. RESULTS: A total of 322 patients were included. Classification according to the ILAR criteria was possible in 321 patients; 290 patients had a disease duration > or = 3 months and were classified according to the EULAR criteria. One child could only be classified according to the EULAR criteria. Thus, 31/322 (9.6%) children were classified according to the ILAR criteria only. Forty-eight of 321 (15%) patients did not fit into any category and 6% (20/321) fulfilled criteria for2 categories. In the ILAR classification 5 out of 7 categories/subgroups have 2 to 5 specified exclusion criteria that highly discriminate the definition of each patient. In our study the exclusion criteria were fulfilled to only a small extent. CONCLUSION: The EULAR and ILAR criteria differ concerning the operational definitions of the subvariables involved, which complicates their comparison. By using ILAR rather than EULAR criteria the number of cases with juvenile arthritis increased by 10%, considering the first half-year after onset. The validity of the ILAR criteria is low since they often exclude patients from subgroup classification and the possibility of having more than one diagnosis is not negligible. The specified exclusion criteria for some of the subgroups are difficult to fulfill in clinical work and variables involved could be questioned with regard to their consistency.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
