The Graded and Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility and Prehension (GRASSP) is a valid, reliable, and responsive outcome measure to evaluate upper limb function in individuals with tetraplegia. GRASSP generates ordinal total scores; therefore, applicability as an interval level measurement requires testing of its measurement properties. This study examined the metric characteristics with Rasch Analysis to derive interval level scales of the respective GRASSP subtests. The GRASSP was recorded within 10 days, and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after cervical spinal cord injury (SCI). Rasch analysis was performed for each GRASSP subscale to assess the following metric assumptions: absence of local item dependency (LID), unidimensionality, monotonicity, item and model fit, reliability, and absence of differential item functioning (DIF) for side (left and right) and examination stage. If these assumptions could not be met, adjustments were undertaken to achieve a good fit to the Rasch model. Seventy-seven individuals with cervical SCI were included (n = 154 arms). Stacking the data for the side (left and right) resulted in a total of 614 observations, which were based on the repeated measurements. With minor adjustments, the GRASSP subscales showed good reliability, item fit, and ordered response options. Local item dependencies were found in the strength and sensibility subscales. Redundancies among some measurement items allowed shortening of the subscales without reasonable loss of reliability. Absence of DIF for the examination stage supported robustness of the subscales over time. The modified GRASSP, now Version 2, subtest scores can be applied as interval level measurements, and the reduction of items within subscales allows for shorter assessment times in clinical studies without degrading metric properties.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
VelstraI.M., CurtA., FrotzlerA., AbelR., Kalsi-RyanS., RietmanJ.S., and BolligerM. (2015). Changes in strength, sensation, and prehension in acute cervical spinal cord injury: European multicenter responsiveness study of the GRASSP. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, 29, 755–766.
2.
VelstraI.M., BolligerM., TanadiniL.G., BaumbergerM., AbelR., RietmanJ.S., and CurtA. (2014). Prediction and stratification of upper limb function and self-care in acute cervical spinal cord injury with the Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility, and Prehension (GRASSP). Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, 28, 632–642.
3.
SteevesJ.D., LammertseD.P., KramerJ.L., KleitmanN., Kalsi-RyanS., JonesL., CurtA., BlightA.R., and AndersonK.D. (2012). Outcome measures for acute/subacute cervical sensorimotor complete (AIS-A) spinal cord injury during a phase 2 clinical trial. Top. Spinal Cord Inj. Rehabil., 18, 1–14.
4.
KramerJ.L., LammertseD.P., SchubertM., CurtA., and SteevesJ.D. (2012). Relationship between motor recovery and independence after sensorimotor-complete cervical spinal cord injury. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, 26, 1064–1071.
5.
Kalsi-RyanS., BeatonD., CurtA., DuffS., PopovicM.R., RudheC., FehlingsM.G., and VerrierM.C. (2012). The Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength Sensibility and Prehension: reliability and validity. J. Neurotrauma, 29, 905–914.
6.
RudheC., and van HedelH.J. (2009). Upper extremity function in persons with tetraplegia: relationships between strength, capacity, and the spinal cord independence measure. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, 23, 413–421.
7.
VelstraI.M., BolligerM., KrebsJ., RietmanJ.S., and CurtA. (2016). Predictive value of upper limb muscles and grasp patterns on functional outcome in cervical spinal cord injury. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 30, 295–306.
8.
Kalsi-RyanS., BeatonD., AhnH., AskesH., DrewB., CurtA., PopovicM., WangJ., VerrierM., and FehlingsM. (2015). Responsiveness, sensitivity and minimally detectable difference of the Graded and Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility, and Prehension, Version 1.0 (GRASSP V1). J Neurotrauma.
9.
NunnallyJ.C., and BernsteinI.H. (1994). Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill: New York; London.
10.
KirshblumS.C., WaringW., Biering-SorensenF., BurnsS.P., JohansenM., Schmidt-ReadM., DonovanW., GravesD., JhaA., JonesL., MulcaheyM.J., and KrassioukovA. (2011). Reference for the 2011 revision of the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury. J. Spinal Cord Med., 34, 547–554.
11.
CatzA., ItzkovichM., AgranovE., RingH., and TamirA. (1997). SCIM—spinal cord independence measure: a new disability scale for patients with spinal cord lesions. Spinal Cord, 35, 850–856.
12.
RavaudJ.F., DelceyM., and YelnikA. (1999). Construct validity of the functional independence measure (FIM): questioning the unidimensionality of the scale and the “value” of FIM scores. Scand. J. Rehabil. Med., 31, 31–41.
13.
RaczekA.E., WareJ.E., BjornerJ.B., GandekB., HaleyS.M., AaronsonN.K., ApoloneG., BechP., BrazierJ.E., BullingerM., and SullivanM. (1998). Comparison of Rasch and summated rating scales constructed from SF–36 physical functioning items in seven countries: results from the IQOLA project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J. Clin. Epidemiol., 51, 1203–1214.
14.
ProdingerB., BallertC.S., BrinkhofM.W., TennantA., and PostM.W. (2016). Metric properties of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure – self report in a community survey. J. Rehabil. Med., 48, 149–164.
15.
McHorneyC.A., HaleyS.M., and WareJ.E.Jr. (1997). 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., 50, 451–461.
16.
LutherS.L., KromreyJ., Powell-CopeG., RosenbergD., NelsonA., AhmedS., and QuigleyP. (2006). A pilot study to modify the SF-36V physical functioning scale for use with veterans with spinal cord injury. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 87, 1059–1066.
17.
CatzA., ItzkovichM., TesioL., Biering-SorensenF., WeeksC., LarameeM.T., CravenB.C., TonackM., HitzigS.L., GlaserE., ZeiligG., AitoS., ScivolettoG., MecciM., ChadwickR.J., El MasryW.S., OsmanA., GlassC.A., SilvaP., SoniB.M., GardnerB.P., SavicG., BergstromE.M., BluvshteinV., and RonenJ. (2007). A multicenter international study on the Spinal Cord Independence Measure, version III: Rasch psychometric validation. Spinal Cord, 45, 275–291.
18.
WuX., LiuJ., TanadiniL.G., LammertseD.P., BlightA.R., KramerJ.L., ScivolettoG., JonesL., KirshblumS., AbelR., FawcettJ., Field-FoteE., GuestJ., LevinsonB., MaierD., TanseyK., WeidnerN., TetzlaffW.G., HothornT., CurtA., and SteevesJ.D. (2015). Challenges for defining minimal clinically important difference (MCID) after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 53, 84–91.
19.
TanadiniL.G., SteevesJ.D., CurtA., and HothornT. (2016). Autoregressive transitional ordinal model to test for treatment effect in neurological trials with complex endpoints. BMC Med. Res. Methodol., 16, 149.
20.
GrimbyG., TennantA., and TesioL. (2012). The use of raw scores from ordinal scales: time to end malpractice?. J. Rehabil. Med., 44, 97–98.
21.
RaschG.W. (1960). Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Copenhagen: Danish National Institute for Educational Research.
22.
BondT.G., and FoxC.M. (2007). Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences, 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ; London.
23.
TennantA., and ConaghanP.G. (2007). 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. 57, 1358–1362.
24.
SmithR.M., SchumackerR.E., and BushM.J. (1998). Using item mean squares to evaluate fit to the Rasch model. J. Outcome Meas., 2, 66–78.
25.
WrightB.D., LinacreJ.M., GustafsonJ.E., and Martin-LöfP. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8, 370.
26.
SmithE.V.Jr. (2002). Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. J. Appl. Meas., 3, 205–231.
27.
WainerH., and KielyG.L. (1987). Item clusters and computerized adaptive testing: a case for testlets. J. Educ. Meas., 24, 185–201.
28.
RaîcheG. (2005). Critical eigenvalue sizes (variances) in standardized residual principal components analysis. Rasch Measurement Transactions 19, 1012. https://rasch.org/rmt/contents.htm
29.
HollandP.W., and WaingerH. (1993). Differrential Item Functioning. New York and London: Erlbaum.
30.
BlandJ.M., and AltmanD.G. (1995). Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. BMJ, 310, 170.
31.
ChristensenK.B., KreinerS. and MesbahM. (2013). Rasch Models in Health. ISTE: Hoboken, NJ; John Wiley & Sons: London.
32.
McHorneyC.A., and TarlovA.R. (1995). Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?. Qual. Life Res., 4, 293–307.
33.
CronbachL.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.
34.
TeamR.C. (2016). R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna.
35.
MairP., and HatzingerR. (2007). Extended Rasch modeling: the eRm package for the application of IRT models in R. J. Stat. Softw., 20, 1–20.
36.
LinacreJ.M., and WrightB.D. (2002). Construction of measures from many-facet data. J. Appl. Meas., 3, 486–512.
37.
TennantA., McKennaS.P., and HagellP. (2004). Application of Rasch analysis in the development and application of quality of life instruments. Value Health, 7, Suppl. 1, S22–26.
38.
ScottS.C., GoldbergM.S., and MayoN.E. (1997). Statistical assessment of ordinal outcomes in comparative studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol., 50, 45–55.
39.
GrondinJ., and BlaisJ.G. (2010). A Rasch Analysis on Collapsing Categories in Item's Response Scales of Survey Questionnaire: Maybe It's Not One Size Fits All. American Educational Research Association: Denver.
40.
Jerosch-HeroldC. (2005). Assessment of sensibility after nerve injury and repair: a systematic review of evidence for validity, reliability and responsiveness of tests. J. Hand Surg. Br., 30, 252–264.
41.
BeekhuizenK.S., and Field–FoteE.C. (2008). Sensory stimulation augments the effects of massed practice training in persons with tetraplegia. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 89, 602–608.
42.
HothornT., HornikK., and ZeileisA. (2006). Unbiased recursive partitioning: a conditional inference framework. J. Comput. Graph. Stat., 15, 651–674.
43.
SpoorenA.I., ArnouldC., SmeetsR.J., SnoekG., and SeelenH.A. (2013). Reference values for the transformed Van Lieshout hand function test for tetraplegia. Spinal Cord, 51, 745–749.
44.
SpoorenA.I., ArnouldC., SmeetsR.J., BongersH.M., and SeelenH.A. (2013). Improvement of the Van Lieshout hand function test for tetraplegia using a Rasch analysis. Spinal Cord, 51, 739–744.
45.
BalasubramanianC.K., LiC.Y., BowdenM.G., DuncanP.W., KautzS.A., and VelozoC.A. (2016). Dimensionality and item-difficulty hierarchy of the lower extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment in individuals with subacute and chronic stroke. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 97, 582–589.
46.
ChenH.F., LinK.C., WuC.Y., and ChenC.L. (2012). Rasch validation and predictive validity of the action research arm test in patients receiving stroke rehabilitation. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 93, 1039–1045.
47.
ChenH.F., WuC.Y., LinK.C., ChenH.C., ChenC.P., and ChenC.K. (2012). Rasch validation of the streamlined Wolf Motor Function Test in people with chronic stroke and subacute stroke. Phys. Ther., 92, 1017–1026.
48.
ChenH.F., WuC.Y., LinK.C., JangY., LinS.C., ChengJ.W., ChungC.Y., and YanY. (2014). Measurement properties of streamlined wolf motor function test in patients at subacute to chronic stages after stroke. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, 28, 839–846.
49.
DaltonE., LanninN.A., LaverK., RossL., AshfordS., McCluskeyA., and shoulder and hand questionnaire in adults following stroke. Disabil. Rehabil. 39, 2504–2511.
50.
KohC.L., HsuehI.P., WangW.C., SheuC.F., YuT.Y., WangC.H., and HsiehC.L. (2006). Validation of the action research arm test using item response theory in patients after stroke. J. Rehabil. Med., 38, 375–380.
51.
Lundgren NilssonA., and TennantA. (2011). Past and present issues in Rasch analysis: the functional independence measure (FIM) revisited. J. Rehabil. Med., 43, 884–891.
52.
O'DellM.W., KimG., RiveraL., FieoR., ChristosP., PolistenaC., FitzgeraldK., and GorgaD. (2013). A psychometric evaluation of the Arm Motor Ability Test. J. Rehabil. Med., 45, 519–527.
53.
WoodburyM., VelozoC.A., ThompsonP.A., LightK., UswatteG., TaubE., WinsteinC.J., MorrisD., BlantonS., Nichols-LarsenD.S., and WolfS.L. (2010). Measurement structure of the Wolf Motor Function Test: implications for motor control theory. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, 24, 791–801.
54.
WoodburyM.L., VelozoC.A., RichardsL.G., and DuncanP.W. (2013). Rasch analysis staging methodology to classify upper extremity movement impairment after stroke. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 94, 1527–1533.
55.
WoodburyM.L., VelozoC.A., RichardsL.G., DuncanP.W., StudenskiS., and LaiS.M. (2007). Dimensionality and construct validity of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the upper extremity. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 88, 715–723.
56.
BraitmayerK., DereskewitzC., OberhauserC., RudolfK.D., and CoenenM. (2016). Examination of the applicability of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire to patients with hand injuries and diseases using Rasch analysis. Patient, 10, 367–376.
57.
FranchignoniF., GiordanoA., SartorioF., VercelliS., PascarielloB., and FerrieroG. (2010). Suggestions for refinement of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Outcome Measure (DASH): a factor analysis and Rasch validation study. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 91, 1370–1377.
58.
ProdingerB., StammT., PetersonD., StuckiG., and TennantA. (2016). Toward a standardized reporting of outcomes in hand osteoarthritis: developing a common metric of outcome measures commonly used to assess functioning. Arthritis Care Res. (Hoboken) 68, 1115–1127.
59.
TaylorW.J., and McPhersonK.M. (2007). Using Rasch analysis to compare the psychometric properties of the Short Form 36 physical function score and the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index in patients with psoriatic arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 57, 723–729.
60.
PostM.W., Van LieshoutG., SeelenH.A., SnoekG.J., IjzermanM.J., and PonsC. (2006). Measurement properties of the short version of the Van Lieshout test for arm/hand function of persons with tetraplegia after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 44, 763–771.
61.
SpoorenA.I., Janssen-PottenY.J., PostM.W., KerckhofsE., NeneA., and SeelenH.A. (2006). Measuring change in arm hand skilled performance in persons with a cervical spinal cord injury: responsiveness of the Van Lieshout Test. Spinal Cord, 44, 772–779.
62.
SnoekG.J., IJzermanM.J., HermensH.J., MaxwellD., and Biering-SorensenF. (2004). Survey of the needs of patients with spinal cord injury: impact and priority for improvement in hand function in tetraplegics. Spinal Cord, 42, 526–532.
63.
HobartJ.C., CanoS.J., ZajicekJ.P., and ThompsonA.J. (2007). Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: problems, solutions, and recommendations. Lancet Neurol. 6, 1094–1105.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
