Advertisement

Rasch Reporting Guideline for Rehabilitation Research (RULER): the RULER Statement

Published:April 11, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2022.03.013

      Abstract

      The application of Rasch Measurement (RM) Theory to rehabilitation assessments has proliferated in recent years. RM Theory helps design and refine assessments so that items reflect a unidimensional construct in an equal interval metric that distinguishes among persons of different abilities in a manner that is consistent with the underlying trait. Rapid growth of RM in rehabilitation assessment studies has led to inconsistent results reporting. Clear, consistent, transparent reporting of RM Theory results is important for advancing rehabilitation science and practice based on precise measures. Precise measures, in turn, provide researchers, practitioners, patients, and other stakeholders with tools for effective decision making.
      The goal of this Rasch Reporting Guideline for Rehabilitation Research (RULER: Rasch Reporting Guideline for Rehabilitation Research) is to provide peer-reviewed, evidence-based, transparent, and consistent recommendations for reporting studies that apply RM Theory in a rehabilitation context. The purpose of the guideline is to ensure that authors, reviewers, and editors have uniform expectations about how to write and evaluate research on rehabilitation outcome assessments.
      A task force of rehabilitation researchers, clinicians, and editors met regularly between November 2018 and August 2020 to identify the need for the guideline, develop an organizing framework, identify content areas, and develop the recommendations. This RULER: Rasch Reporting Guideline for Rehabilitation Research statement includes the organizing framework and a checklist of 59 recommendations. The guideline is supported by an Explanation and Elaboration article that provides more detail about the framework and recommendations in the checklist. A glossary of key terms and a recommended iterations table are provided in supplemental online only materials.

      Keywords

      List of abbreviations:

      ACRM (American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine), COSMIN (Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments), CTT (classical test theory), EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research), IRT (item response theory), M-ISIG (Measurement Interdisciplinary Special Interest Group), RM (Rasch Measurement), RULER (Rasch Reporting Guideline for Rehabilitation Research)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Aryadoust V
        • Tan HAH
        • Ng LY.
        A scientometric review of Rasch measurement: the rise and progress of a specialty.
        Front Psychol. 2019; 10: 2197
        • Andrich D.
        Rating scales and Rasch measurement.
        Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011; 11 (Expert Rev): 571-585
        • Bond TG
        • Fox CM.
        Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences.
        Taylor & Francis, Mahwax, NJ2001
        • Andrich D
        • Marais I.
        A course in Rasch Measurement Theory: measuring in the educational, social and health sciences.
        Springer, New York2019
      1. Wright BD, Stone MH. ACEReSearch. Best test design. Available at: https://research.acer.edu.au/measurement/1/. Accessed June 18, 2020.

        • Wilson M.
        Constructing measures: an item response modeling approach.
        Routledge, MahWah, NJ2004
        • Bond T
        • Yan Z
        • Heene M.
        Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences.
        Routledge, New York2020
      2. Campbell G. Consult QD. From floor to SNF with 6 clicks. Available at: https://consultqd.clevelandclinic.org/from-floor-to-snf-with-6-clicks/. Accessed July 23, 2020.

      3. Campbell G. Consult QD. From hospital to inpatient rehabilitation with 6 Clicks. Available at: https://consultqd.clevelandclinic.org/from-hospital-to-inpatient-rehabilitation-with-6-clicks/. Accessed July 23, 2020.

        • Pfoh ER
        • Hamilton A
        • Hu B
        • Stilphen M
        • Rothberg MB.
        The Six-Clicks Mobility Measure: a useful tool for predicting discharge disposition.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020; 101: 1199-1203
        • Haley SM
        • Coster WJ
        • Andres PL
        • et al.
        Activity outcome measurement for postacute care.
        Med Care. 2004; 42: I49-I61
        • Woodbury ML
        • Anderson K
        • Finetto C
        • et al.
        Matching task difficulty to patient ability during task practice improves upper extremity motor skill after stroke: a proof-of-concept study.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016; 97: 1863-1871
        • Choi BS.
        Keyform analysis of Rasch measurement accessible to clinicians in rehabilitation clinics.
        Phys Ther Korea. 2014; 21: 74-81
        • Merritt BK.
        Utilizing AMPS ability measures to predict level of community dependence.
        Scand J Occup Ther. 2010; 17: 70-76
        • Merritt BK.
        Validity of using the assessment of motor and process skills to determine the need for assistance.
        Am J Occup Ther. 2011; 65: 643-650
      4. Rasch G. An individual-centered approach to item analysis with two categories of answers. In: Psychological measurement theory, proceedings of the NUFFIC international summer session in science at “Het oude Hof.” Accessed July 2020. https://www.rasch.org/memo19642.pdf.

        • Andrich D.
        Rasch models for measurement. London.
        Sage, Newbury Park, CA1988
        • Van de Winckel A
        • Ottiger B
        • Bohlhalter S
        • Nyffeler T
        • Vanbellingen T.
        Comprehensive ADL outcome measurement after stroke: Rasch validation of the Lucerne ICF-Based Multidisciplinary Observation Scale (LIMOS).
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019; 100: 2314-2323
        • American Educational Research Association
        • American Psychological Association
        • National Council on Measurement in Education
        • Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (U.S.)
        Standards for educational and psychological testing.
        American Educational Research Association, WashingtonDC2014
        • Messick S.
        Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning.
        Am Psychol. 1995; 50: 741-749
      5. Smith RM, Linacre JM, Smith EV Jr. Journal of Applied Measurement. Guidelines for manuscripts. Available at: http://jampress.org/guidelines.htm. Accessed July 9, 2020.

      6. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. Guidelines for reporting studies using Rasch analysis. Available at: https://www.medicaljournals.se/jrm/guidelines-for-reporting-studies-using-rasch-analysis. Accessed July 9, 2020.

        • Tennant A
        • Conaghan PG.
        The Rasch Measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper?.
        Arthritis Rheum. 2007; 57: 1358-1362
      7. COSMIN. Improving the selection of outcome measurement instruments. Available at: https://www.cosmin.nl/. Accessed July 9, 2020.

        • Mokkink LB
        • de Vet HCW
        • Prinsen CAC
        • et al.
        COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures.
        Qual Life Res. 2018; 27: 1171-1179
        • Prinsen CAC
        • Mokkink LB
        • Bouter LM
        • et al.
        COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures.
        Qual Life Res. 2018; 27: 1147-1157
        • Terwee CB
        • Prinsen CAC
        • Chiarotto A
        • et al.
        COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study.
        Qual Life Res. 2018; 27: 1159-1170
        • Kottner J
        • Audige L
        • Brorson S
        • et al.
        Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed.
        Int J Nurs Stud. 2011; 48: 661-671
      8. Equator Network. Reporting guidelines under development for observational studies. Available at: https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-observational-studies/. Accessed July 23, 2020.

      9. American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Rasch Reporting Guidelines Task Force. Available at: https://acrm.org/acrm-communities/measurement/mng-task-forces/rasch-reporting-guidelines-task-force. Accessed July 23, 2020.

        • Moher D
        • Schulz KF
        • Simera I
        • Altman DG.
        Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines.
        PLoS Med. 2010; 7e1000217
      10. Equator Network. Writing up and publishing your reporting guideline. Available at: https://www.equator-network.org/toolkits/developing-a-reporting-guideline/writing-up-and-publishing-your-reporting-guideline/. Accessed May 27, 2021.

        • Moons KGM
        • Altman DG
        • Reitsma JB
        • et al.
        Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration.
        Ann Intern Med. 2015; 162: W1-73