Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Mar;11(2):227-236.
doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1385. Epub 2020 Jan 5.

Construct validity of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) quality scale for randomized trials: Item response theory and factor analyses

Emiliano Albanese  1   2 , Lukas Bütikofer  3   4 , Susan Armijo-Olivo  5   6 , Christine Ha  5 , Matthias Egger  3
Affiliations

Construct validity of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) quality scale for randomized trials: Item response theory and factor analyses

Emiliano Albanese et al. Res Synth Methods. 2020 Mar.

Abstract

Background: There is an agreement that the methodological quality of randomized trials should be assessed in systematic reviews, but there is a debate on how this should be done. We conducted a construct validation study of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale, which is widely used to assess the quality of trials in physical therapy and rehabilitation.

Methods: We analyzed 345 trials that were included in Cochrane reviews and for which a PEDro summary score was available. We used one- and two-parameter logistic item response theory (IRT) models to study the psychometric properties of the PEDro scale and assessed the items' difficulty and discrimination parameters. We ran goodness of fit post estimations and examined the IRT unidimensionality assumption with a multidimensional IRT (MIRT) model.

Results: Out of a maximum of 10, the mean PEDro summary score was 5.46 (SD = 1.51). The allocation concealment and intention-to-treat scale items contributed most of the information on the underlying construct (with discriminations of 1.79 and 2.05, respectively) at similar difficulties (0.63 and 0.65, respectively). The other items provided little additional information and did not distinguish trials of different quality. There was substantial evidence of departure from the unidimensionality assumption, suggesting that the PEDro items relate to more than one latent trait.

Conclusions: Our findings question the construct validity of the PEDro scale to assess the methodological quality of clinical trials. PEDro summary scores should not be used; rather, the physiotherapy community should consider working with the individual items of the scale.

Keywords: item response theory; physiotherapy; randomized clinical trials; risk of bias; study quality scale; validation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors reported no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Items of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale and their distribution in the validation dataset of 345 trials. Item 1 (eligibility criteria) does not contribute to the total score
Figure 2
Figure 2
Item characteristic curves from the two‐parameter logistic model [Colour figure can be viewed at http://wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 3
Figure 3
Item information functions (IIF) from the two‐parameter logistic model for all PEDro items. Items 3 and 9 contributed the most information but at the same trial quality. The coverage for qualities larger than 2 was poor [Colour figure can be viewed at http://wileyonlinelibrary.com]
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376‐380. - PubMed
    1. Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M, Juni P. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta‐analysis. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 1999;282(11):1054‐1060. - PubMed
    1. Moja LP, Telaro E, D'Amico R, Moschetti I, Coe L, Liberati A. Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality study cross sectional study. Br Med J. 2005;330(7499):1053‐1055. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Olivo SA, Macedo LG, Gadotti IC, Fuentes J, Stanton T, Magee DJ. Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2008;88(2):156‐175. doi:ptj.20070147 [pii]. 10.2522/ptj.20070147 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials. 1995;16(1):62‐73. - PubMed