A Rasch-Validated Version of the Upper Extremity Functional Index for Interval-Level Measurement of Upper Extremity Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The original 20-item Upper Extremity Functional Index (UEFI) has not undergone Rasch validation. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether Rasch analysis supports the UEFI as a measure of a single construct (ie, upper extremity function) and whether a Rasch-validated UEFI has adequate reproducibility for individual-level patient evaluation. DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of data from a repeated-measures study designed to evaluate the measurement properties of the UEFI over a 3-week period. METHODS: Patients (n=239) with musculoskeletal upper extremity disorders were recruited from 17 physical therapy clinics across 4 Canadian provinces. Rasch analysis of the UEFI measurement properties was performed. If the UEFI did not fit the Rasch model, misfitting patients were deleted, items with poor response structure were corrected, and misfitting items and redundant items were deleted. The impact of differential item functioning on the ability estimate of patients was investigated. RESULTS: A 15-item modified UEFI was derived to achieve fit to the Rasch model where the total score was supported as a measure of upper extremity function only. The resultant UEFI-15 interval-level scale (0-100, worst to best state) demonstrated excellent internal consistency (person separation index=0.94) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [2,1]=.95). The minimal detectable change at the 90% confidence interval was 8.1. LIMITATIONS: Patients who were ambidextrous or bilaterally affected were excluded to allow for the analysis of differential item functioning due to limb involvement and arm dominance. CONCLUSION: Rasch analysis did not support the validity of the 20-item UEFI. However, the UEFI-15 was a valid and reliable interval-level measure of a single dimension: upper extremity function. Rasch analysis supports using the UEFI-15 in physical therapist practice to quantify upper extremity function in patients with musculoskeletal disorders of the upper extremity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".