title: Clinimetric evaluation of the physical mobility scale supports clinicians and researchers in residential aged care.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To investigate the interrater agreement and the internal construct validity of the Physical Mobility Scale, a tool routinely used to assess mobility of people living in residential aged care.
  
  
  METHODS
  Prospective, multicenter, external validation study.
  
  
  METHODS
  Nine residential aged care facilities in Australia.
  
  
  METHODS
  Residents (N=186). Phase 1 cohort (99 residents; mean age, 85.22+/-5.1y); phase 2 cohort (87 residents; mean age, 81.59+/-10.69y).
  
  
  METHODS
  Not applicable.
  
  
  METHODS
  Kappa statistics, minimal detectable change (MDC(90)) scores, and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess interrater agreement. Scale unidimensionality, item hierarchy, and person separation were examined with Rasch analysis for both cohorts.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Agreement between raters on 6 of the 9 Physical Mobility Scale items was high (kappa>.60). The MDC(90) value was 4.39 points, and no systematic differences in scores between raters were found. The Physical Mobility Scale showed a unidimensional structure demonstrated by fit to the Rasch model in both cohorts (phase 1: chi(2)=23.90, P=.16, person separation index=0.96; phase 2: chi(2)=22.00, P=.23, person separation index=0.96). Standing balance was the most difficult item in both cohorts (phase 1: logit=2.48, SE, 0.16; phase 2: logit=2.53, SE, 0.15). The person-item threshold map indicated no floor or ceiling effects in either cohort.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The Physical Mobility Scale demonstrated good interrater agreement and internal construct validity with good fit to the Rasch model in both cohorts. The comparative results across the 2 cohorts indicate generality of the findings. The Physical Mobility Scale total raw scores can be converted to Rasch transformed scores, providing an interval measure of mobility. The Physical Mobility Scale may be suited to a range of clinical and research applications in residential aged care.
authors.affiliation: Division of Physiotherapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. anna.barker@nh.org.au
authors.forename: Anna L
authors.initials: AL
authors.lastname: Barker
authors.forename: Jennifer C
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: Nitz
authors.forename: Nancy L
authors.initials: NL
authors.lastname: Low Choy
authors.forename: Terry P
authors.initials: TP
authors.lastname: Haines
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001315:Australia; D004185:Disability Evaluation; D005260:Female; D006707:Homes for the Aged; D006801:Humans; D016015:Logistic Models; D008297:Male; D051346:Mobility Limitation; D009735:Nursing Homes; D015588:Observer Variation; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011793:Queensland; D012046:Rehabilitation; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D016037:Single-Blind Method; D016896:Treatment Outcome