Limits...
The PROactive instruments to measure physical activity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Gimeno-Santos E, Raste Y, Demeyer H, Louvaris Z, de Jong C, Rabinovich RA, Hopkinson NS, Polkey MI, Vogiatzis I, Tabberer M, Dobbels F, Ivanoff N, de Boer WI, van der Molen T, Kulich K, Serra I, Basagaña X, Troosters T, Puhan MA, Karlsson N, Garcia-Aymerich J, PROactive consorti - Eur. Respir. J. (2015)

Bottom Line: Our objective was item reduction and initial validation of two instruments to measure physical activity in COPD.Physical activity was assessed in a 6-week, randomised, two-way cross-over, multicentre study using PROactive draft questionnaires (daily and clinical visit versions) and two activity monitors.After item reduction, the daily PROactive instrument comprised nine items and the clinical visit contained 14.Confirmatory factor analysis supported the bidimensional structure.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL), Barcelona, Spain Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain FCS Blanquerna, Research Group in Physiotherapy (GReFis), Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Person-item maps and overall fit of the model for factors 1 (“amount”) and 2 (“difficulty”) of the daily version of PROactive physical activity in COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) (D-PPAC) and the clinical visit version of the PROactive Physical Activity in COPD (C-PPAC) instruments. These plots indicate that the final items are well targeted to the patients and cover a wide range of the factor measured. Person separation index (PSI) values indicate that each factor is precise enough to differentiate between different patients’ physical activity experiences. a) D-PPAC final items of factor 1 in combination with final variables of Dynaport; b) C-PPAC final items of factor 1 in combination with final variables of Dynaport; c) D-PPAC final items of factor 1 in combination with final variables of Actigraph; d) C-PPAC final items of factor 1 in combination with final variables of Actigraph; e) D-PPAC final items of factor 2; f) C-PPAC final items of factor 2.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4589432&req=5

Figure 4: Person-item maps and overall fit of the model for factors 1 (“amount”) and 2 (“difficulty”) of the daily version of PROactive physical activity in COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) (D-PPAC) and the clinical visit version of the PROactive Physical Activity in COPD (C-PPAC) instruments. These plots indicate that the final items are well targeted to the patients and cover a wide range of the factor measured. Person separation index (PSI) values indicate that each factor is precise enough to differentiate between different patients’ physical activity experiences. a) D-PPAC final items of factor 1 in combination with final variables of Dynaport; b) C-PPAC final items of factor 1 in combination with final variables of Dynaport; c) D-PPAC final items of factor 1 in combination with final variables of Actigraph; d) C-PPAC final items of factor 1 in combination with final variables of Actigraph; e) D-PPAC final items of factor 2; f) C-PPAC final items of factor 2.

Mentions: Tables 2 and 3 detail the reasons for item flagging for exclusion: due to floor or ceiling effects, not fitting unidimensionality, redundancy, not proper ordering, differential item functioning or less relevant for patients and/or experts. For the D-PPAC, a total of five iterations in factor 1 (“amount”) allowed a reduction from nine to four items, including two variables from activity monitors (steps and vector magnitude unit (VMU)); and in factor 2 (“difficulty”), a total of 12 iterations allowed a reduction from 26 to five items. Full information on item removal is detailed in online supplementary table E5. The final version of the D-PPAC (see online supplement), described in figure 3, exhibited good performance and distribution of items, according to the person separation index (PSI) (0.83 in factor 1 with Dynaport, and 0.80 in factor 1 with Actigraph; 0.88 in factor 2) and the person-item map (fig. 4). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the two-factor structure and exhibited appropriate goodness of fit (online supplementary table E6).FIGURE 3


The PROactive instruments to measure physical activity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Gimeno-Santos E, Raste Y, Demeyer H, Louvaris Z, de Jong C, Rabinovich RA, Hopkinson NS, Polkey MI, Vogiatzis I, Tabberer M, Dobbels F, Ivanoff N, de Boer WI, van der Molen T, Kulich K, Serra I, Basagaña X, Troosters T, Puhan MA, Karlsson N, Garcia-Aymerich J, PROactive consorti - Eur. Respir. J. (2015)

Person-item maps and overall fit of the model for factors 1 (“amount”) and 2 (“difficulty”) of the daily version of PROactive physical activity in COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) (D-PPAC) and the clinical visit version of the PROactive Physical Activity in COPD (C-PPAC) instruments. These plots indicate that the final items are well targeted to the patients and cover a wide range of the factor measured. Person separation index (PSI) values indicate that each factor is precise enough to differentiate between different patients’ physical activity experiences. a) D-PPAC final items of factor 1 in combination with final variables of Dynaport; b) C-PPAC final items of factor 1 in combination with final variables of Dynaport; c) D-PPAC final items of factor 1 in combination with final variables of Actigraph; d) C-PPAC final items of factor 1 in combination with final variables of Actigraph; e) D-PPAC final items of factor 2; f) C-PPAC final items of factor 2.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4589432&req=5

Figure 4: Person-item maps and overall fit of the model for factors 1 (“amount”) and 2 (“difficulty”) of the daily version of PROactive physical activity in COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) (D-PPAC) and the clinical visit version of the PROactive Physical Activity in COPD (C-PPAC) instruments. These plots indicate that the final items are well targeted to the patients and cover a wide range of the factor measured. Person separation index (PSI) values indicate that each factor is precise enough to differentiate between different patients’ physical activity experiences. a) D-PPAC final items of factor 1 in combination with final variables of Dynaport; b) C-PPAC final items of factor 1 in combination with final variables of Dynaport; c) D-PPAC final items of factor 1 in combination with final variables of Actigraph; d) C-PPAC final items of factor 1 in combination with final variables of Actigraph; e) D-PPAC final items of factor 2; f) C-PPAC final items of factor 2.
Mentions: Tables 2 and 3 detail the reasons for item flagging for exclusion: due to floor or ceiling effects, not fitting unidimensionality, redundancy, not proper ordering, differential item functioning or less relevant for patients and/or experts. For the D-PPAC, a total of five iterations in factor 1 (“amount”) allowed a reduction from nine to four items, including two variables from activity monitors (steps and vector magnitude unit (VMU)); and in factor 2 (“difficulty”), a total of 12 iterations allowed a reduction from 26 to five items. Full information on item removal is detailed in online supplementary table E5. The final version of the D-PPAC (see online supplement), described in figure 3, exhibited good performance and distribution of items, according to the person separation index (PSI) (0.83 in factor 1 with Dynaport, and 0.80 in factor 1 with Actigraph; 0.88 in factor 2) and the person-item map (fig. 4). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the two-factor structure and exhibited appropriate goodness of fit (online supplementary table E6).FIGURE 3

Bottom Line: Our objective was item reduction and initial validation of two instruments to measure physical activity in COPD.Physical activity was assessed in a 6-week, randomised, two-way cross-over, multicentre study using PROactive draft questionnaires (daily and clinical visit versions) and two activity monitors.After item reduction, the daily PROactive instrument comprised nine items and the clinical visit contained 14.Confirmatory factor analysis supported the bidimensional structure.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL), Barcelona, Spain Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain FCS Blanquerna, Research Group in Physiotherapy (GReFis), Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus