To date, VSS is the most widely used rating scale for scars but POSAS appears the most comprehensive, taking into account the important aspect of patient's perspective. The MSS has been never used for research, while SBSES has only been very recently proposed.

The aim of this study was to perform a psychometric analysis on the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) using Rasch analysis, a modern statistical approach for examining rating scale data. Eighty-five subjects, long-term residents of a nursing home, were analysed using the GOHAI. The mean GOHAI score (range 0-48) was 11. Two of the five rating categories (1 = seldom; 3 = often) did not comply with the Rasch criteria for category functioning. After collapsing rating categories into a three-level rating scale (0 = never; 1 = sometimes; 2 = often/always), the new model met the set criteria. Item 12 'sensitivity to hot, cold or sweets' was misfitting. Rasch analysis showed both the unidimensionality of (at least) 11 of the 12 items of GOHAI, and the possibility of simplifying the structure of its rating scale.

No abstract

The aim of this study was to translate, culturally adapt and validate an Italian version of the Athlete Fear Avoidance Questionnaire (AFAQ-I). We conducted a cross-sectional evaluation of the psychometric properties of the AFAQ-I in university athletes with musculoskeletal injuries, culturally adapting it in accordance with international standards. Psychometric evaluation included the assessment of structural validity (exploratory factor analysis), internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha and inter-item correlation), test-retest reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient, (ICC) (2,1)], measurement error and minimum detectable change (MDC). To examine construct validity, we compared (Spearman ρ) the AFAQ-I with a numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) subscales [FABQ-Physical Activity (FABQ-PA) and FABQ-Work (FABQ-W)]. The AFAQ-I was administered to 133 university athletes with musculoskeletal injuries (95 males and 38 females; mean age 25 years, SD 5; mean average pain duration 5.6 months, SD 8.7). Factor analysis revealed an acceptable 1-factor 10-item solution (explained common variance at minimum rank factor analysis: 0.74) although a couple of items (#6 and 9) presented low factor loadings, suggesting the presence of a small secondary dimension. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.78 and the average inter-item correlation was 0.27. ICC (2,1) was 0.95 and the MDC was 4.4 points. As hypothesized a priori, the AFAQ-I moderately correlated with NPRS (ρ = 0.42), PCS (ρ = 0.59), FABQ-PA (ρ = 0.40) and FABQ-W (ρ = 0.34). In conclusion, the AFAQ-I is a valid Italian translation of AFAQ that demonstrates acceptable psychometric properties. However, we recommend further analysis of the construct definition of the AFAQ and additional examination of its structural validity.

I hereby submit our paper entitled "Head-to-head Rasch comparison of the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire-Mobility Section and the Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire 2.0 in Italian lower-limb prosthesis users" for your consideration for publication in "Prosthetics and Orthotics International".The Prosthesis-Evaluation-Questionnaire Mobility Section (PEQ-MS) and Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire (PMQ 2.0) are two validated self-report questionnaires assessing mobility in people with lower-limb amputation. We compared the psychometric properties of these two questionnaires head-to-head in a sample of 100 lower-limb prosthesis users. Our results show that the PMQ 2.0 has a better measurement performance and larger operational range than the PEQ-MS, making it more suitable for assessing lower-limb prosthesis users with a large range of locomotor abilities. We think that these findings will be of interest to the readers of your journal, in that understanding the psychometric strengths and weaknesses of measurement tools is important for selecting suitable outcome measures, addressing clinical and research issues, and informing healthcare policy decision-making.