Feasibility Study Using Propensity Score Matching Methods for the Pseudo-Common Person Equating Requirement.
Ickpyo Hong, Catherine C Hay, Timothy A Reistetter
PMID 29882470WHAT IT FOUND
Matching two groups on demographics did not make their daily living and physical function items behave like one ability.
Average scores were similar, but how people answered was not, so this method cannot replace giving both tests to the same people.
Key findings
01The 19 selected physical function and daily living items initially behaved as a single measure.
02After matching, the original and duplicated item sets formed two separate factors rather than one.
03Average scores were similar, but response patterns showed weak agreement for bathing and getting from bed to chair.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study used one public dataset of Mexican American adults aged above 70 years, so it may not apply to other groups. The matching sample size was chosen arbitrarily. Only one matching method and one set of physical function and daily living items were tested. Three characteristics remained unbalanced after matching. The matching was based only on high and low functional status, not more detailed function scores.
Declared interests
The supplied record lists NIH extramural support. The article text does not include a conflict-of-interest declaration.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that matching different patient groups on demographics can replace giving both ADL instruments to the same people. It balanced many covariates, but the matched items did not behave as one measure, and response patterns were not the same.