Functional Test of the Hemiparetic Upper Extremity: A Rasch Analysis With Theoretical Implications

Structural validity and internal consistency of a hypothesized factor structure of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the upper extremity

BACKGROUND

Many studies have confirmed the psychometric properties of Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the upper extremity (FMA-UE). Although several modified versions of the FMA-UE form exist, their structural validity has not been fully established.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the structural validity and internal consistency of the original, short, and hypothesized FMA-UE forms.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional, multicenter, observational study, the factor structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the adequate model of each hypothetical FMA-UE form (original, 30-item, 27-item, and 6-item forms). The internal consistency of each FMA-UE form and subscale was assessed using Cronbach's alpha after factor structure evaluation.

RESULTS

We recruited 363 patients with first-episode stroke (median age = 70.0, median days = 75.0). The results of the original form models were not estimated by CFA. Of all FMA-UE forms, the 30-item form lacked three reflex items (4-factor, 30-item model) and the 27-item form lacked three reflex and three coordination items (3-factor, 27-item, second-order model); these forms demonstrated an adequate model fitness (root mean square error of approximation = 0.056/0.059, comparative fit index = 0.995/0.996, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.995/0.995). The 6-item form demonstrated a poor model fit. All FMA-UE forms and subscales showed a high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha>0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

Both 30- and 27-item FMA-UE forms showed a good factor structure; therefore, these forms are eligible for use in clinical practice. However, future studies should define the factor structure of the 6-item form.

A Scientometric Review of Rasch Measurement: The Rise and Progress of a Specialty

A recent review of the literature concluded that Rasch measurement is an influential approach in psychometric modeling. Despite the major contributions of Rasch measurement to the growth of scientific research across various fields, there is currently no research on the trends and evolution of Rasch measurement research. The present study used co-citation techniques and a multiple perspectives approach to investigate 5,365 publications on Rasch measurement between 01 January 1972 and 03 May 2019 and their 108,339 unique references downloaded from the Web of Science (WoS). Several methods of network development involving visualization and text-mining were used to analyze these data: author co-citation analysis (ACA), document co-citation analysis (DCA), journal author co-citation analysis (JCA), and keyword analysis. In addition, to investigate the inter-domain trends that link the Rasch measurement specialty to other specialties, we used a dual-map overlay to investigate specialty-to-specialty connections. Influential authors, publications, journals, and keywords were identified. Multiple research frontiers or sub-specialties were detected and the major ones were reviewed, including “visual function questionnaires”, “non-parametric item response theory”, “valid measures (validity)”, “latent class models”, and “many-facet Rasch model”. One of the outstanding patterns identified was the dominance and impact of publications written for general groups of practitioners and researchers. In personal communications, the authors of these publications stressed their mission as being “teachers” who aim to promote Rasch measurement as a conceptual model with real-world applications. Based on these findings, we propose that sociocultural and ethnographic factors have a huge capacity to influence fields of science and should be considered in future investigations of psychometrics and measurement. As the first scientometric review of the Rasch measurement specialty, this study will be of interest to researchers, graduate students, and professors seeking to identify research trends, topics, major publications, and influential scholars.