↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Using existing questionnaires in latent class analysis: should we use summary scores or single items as input? A methodological study using a cohort of patients with low back pain

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Epidemiology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
Title
Using existing questionnaires in latent class analysis: should we use summary scores or single items as input? A methodological study using a cohort of patients with low back pain
Published in
Clinical Epidemiology, April 2016
DOI 10.2147/clep.s103330
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Molgaard Nielsen, Werner Vach, Peter Kent, Lise Hestbaek, Alice Kongsted

Abstract

Latent class analysis (LCA) is increasingly being used in health research, but optimal approaches to handling complex clinical data are unclear. One issue is that commonly used questionnaires are multidimensional, but expressed as summary scores. Using the example of low back pain (LBP), the aim of this study was to explore and descriptively compare the application of LCA when using questionnaire summary scores and when using single items to subgrouping of patients based on multidimensional data. Baseline data from 928 LBP patients in an observational study were classified into four health domains (psychology, pain, activity, and participation) using the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health framework. LCA was performed within each health domain using the strategies of summary-score and single-item analyses. The resulting subgroups were descriptively compared using statistical measures and clinical interpretability. For each health domain, the preferred model solution ranged from five to seven subgroups for the summary-score strategy and seven to eight subgroups for the single-item strategy. There was considerable overlap between the results of the two strategies, indicating that they were reflecting the same underlying data structure. However, in three of the four health domains, the single-item strategy resulted in a more nuanced description, in terms of more subgroups and more distinct clinical characteristics. In these data, application of both the summary-score strategy and the single-item strategy in the LCA subgrouping resulted in clinically interpretable subgroups, but the single-item strategy generally revealed more distinguishing characteristics. These results 1) warrant further analyses in other data sets to determine the consistency of this finding, and 2) warrant investigation in longitudinal data to test whether the finer detail provided by the single-item strategy results in improved prediction of outcomes and treatment response.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 22%
Researcher 12 20%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 13%
Psychology 6 10%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 16 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 May 2016.
All research outputs
#14,285,563
of 23,341,064 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#421
of 734 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,342
of 301,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,341,064 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 734 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 301,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.