Skip to main content
PMC home page
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases logoLink to Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
. 1999 Sep;58(9):563–568. doi: 10.1136/ard.58.9.563

Rasch analysis of the Western Ontario MacMaster Questionnaire (WOMAC) in 2205 patients with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and fibromyalgia

F Wolfe 1, S Kong 1
PMCID: PMC1752940  PMID: 10460190

Abstract

OBJECTIVE—Advances in health measurement have led to the application of Rasch Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis (Rasch analysis) to evaluate instruments measuring health status and quality of life of patients, including the Health Assessment Questionnaire and SF-36. This study investigated the extent to which the Western Ontario MacMaster osteoarthritis questionnaire (WOMAC) satisfies the Rasch model, particularly in respect to unidimensionality, item separation, and linearity.
METHODS—The study included a total of 2205 patients, 1013 with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 655 with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip (OA), and 537 with fibromyalgia. All patients completed the WOMAC as part of a longitudinal study of rheumatic disease outcomes. To examine whether the WOMAC pain and function scales each fits the Rasch model, the Winsteps program was used to assess item difficulty, scale unidimensionality, item separation, and linearity.
RESULTS—Although the WOMAC worked best in OA, regardless of disorder, both the pain and function scales were unidimensional, had adequate item separation, and had a long range (25-150) of linearity in the function scale. Several functional items, however, had a high information weight fit (INFIT) statistic, indicating poor fit to the model. These items included "getting in and out of the bath" and "going down stairs."
CONCLUSION—The WOMAC generally satisfies the requirements of Rasch item response theory across all disorders studied, and is an appropriate measure of lower body function in OA, RA and fibromyalgia. Although some individual items do not fit well, it is not likely that removing such items would result in more than overall minimal differences, and it will be difficult to remove traces of multidimensionality while keeping the central constructs of progressive lower body musculoskeletal abnormality intact. In addition, it is possible that a "purer", still more unidimensional instrument would be less useful in clinical trials and epidemiological studies by restricting the range of the scale.



Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (105.4 KB).

Figure 1  .

Figure 1  

Open in a new tab

Distribution of 2205 WOMAC function scores as modelled in a kernel density plot. Actual range is 0-170.

Figure 2  .

Figure 2  

Open in a new tab

INFIT (MNSQ) statistics for WOMAC functional scale items. INFIT statistics > 1.2-1.3 indicate that the item does not contribute to the underlying construct. INFIT (MNSQ) values of < 0.7-0.8 indicate items that are muted.

Figure 3  .

Figure 3  

Open in a new tab

Average calibration in logits for WOMAC functional scale items. Negative calibrations indicate more difficult items. The more positive the score the easier the item.

Figure 4  .

Figure 4  

Open in a new tab

Plot of severity in logits versus WOMAC functional score for OA. Curves are similar in RA and fibromyalgia. The WOMAC function score is linear over the range of 25-150 (equivalent range on 0-10 scale is 1.5-8.8). Less than two per cent of patients have scores greater than 150. Twenty one per cent have scores less than 25 (see fig 1).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Altman R., Alarcón G., Appelrouth D., Bloch D., Borenstein D., Brandt K., Brown C., Cooke T. D., Daniel W., Feldman D. The American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hip. Arthritis Rheum. 1991 May;34(5):505–514. doi: 10.1002/art.1780340502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Altman R., Asch E., Bloch D., Bole G., Borenstein D., Brandt K., Christy W., Cooke T. D., Greenwald R., Hochberg M. Development of criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis. Classification of osteoarthritis of the knee. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee of the American Rheumatism Association. Arthritis Rheum. 1986 Aug;29(8):1039–1049. doi: 10.1002/art.1780290816. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnett F. C., Edworthy S. M., Bloch D. A., McShane D. J., Fries J. F., Cooper N. S., Healey L. A., Kaplan S. R., Liang M. H., Luthra H. S. The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1988 Mar;31(3):315–324. doi: 10.1002/art.1780310302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker J. G., Granger C. V., Fiedler R. C. A brief outpatient functional assessment measure: validity using Rasch measures. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1997 Jan-Feb;76(1):8–13. doi: 10.1097/00002060-199701000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Barr S., Bellamy N., Buchanan W. W., Chalmers A., Ford P. M., Kean W. F., Kraag G. R., Gerecz-Simon E., Campbell J. A comparative study of signal versus aggregate methods of outcome measurement based on the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. J Rheumatol. 1994 Nov;21(11):2106–2112. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bellamy N., Buchanan W. W., Chalmers A., Ford P. M., Kean W. F., Kraag G. R., Gerecz-Simon E., Campbell J. A multicenter study of tenoxicam and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. J Rheumatol. 1993 Jun;20(6):999–1004. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bellamy N., Buchanan W. W., Goldsmith C. H., Campbell J., Stitt L. W. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988 Dec;15(12):1833–1840. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bellamy N., Buchanan W. W. Outcome measurement in osteoarthritis clinical trials: the case for standardisation. Clin Rheumatol. 1984 Sep;3(3):293–303. doi: 10.1007/BF02032334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bellamy N., Campbell J., Stevens J., Pilch L., Stewart C., Mahmood Z. Validation study of a computerized version of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities VA3.0 Osteoarthritis Index. J Rheumatol. 1997 Dec;24(12):2413–2415. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bellamy N., Kean W. F., Buchanan W. W., Gerecz-Simon E., Campbell J. Double blind randomized controlled trial of sodium meclofenamate (Meclomen) and diclofenac sodium (Voltaren): post validation reapplication of the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index. J Rheumatol. 1992 Jan;19(1):153–159. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bellamy N. Pain assessment in osteoarthritis: experience with the WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1989 May;18(4 Suppl 2):14–17. doi: 10.1016/0049-0172(89)90010-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bellamy N., Wells G., Campbell J. Relationship between severity and clinical importance of symptoms in osteoarthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 1991 Jun;10(2):138–143. doi: 10.1007/BF02207652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bombardier C., Melfi C. A., Paul J., Green R., Hawker G., Wright J., Coyte P. Comparison of a generic and a disease-specific measure of pain and physical function after knee replacement surgery. Med Care. 1995 Apr;33(4 Suppl):AS131–AS144. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chang W. C., Chan C. Rasch analysis for outcomes measures: some methodological considerations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995 Oct;76(10):934–939. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(95)80070-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Granger C. V., Deutsch A., Linn R. T. Rasch analysis of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) Mastery Test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998 Jan;79(1):52–57. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(98)90208-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Granger C. V., Ottenbacher K. J., Baker J. G., Sehgal A. Reliability of a brief outpatient functional outcome assessment measure. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1995 Nov-Dec;74(6):469–475. doi: 10.1097/00002060-199511000-00018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Grimby G., Andrén E., Holmgren E., Wright B., Linacre J. M., Sundh V. Structure of a combination of Functional Independence Measure and Instrumental Activity Measure items in community-living persons: a study of individuals with cerebral palsy and spina bifida. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996 Nov;77(11):1109–1114. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(96)90131-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Haley S. M., McHorney C. A., Ware J. E., Jr Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10): I. Unidimensionality and reproducibility of the Rasch item scale. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994 Jun;47(6):671–684. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90215-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hawker G., Melfi C., Paul J., Green R., Bombardier C. Comparison of a generic (SF-36) and a disease specific (WOMAC) (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) instrument in the measurement of outcomes after knee replacement surgery. J Rheumatol. 1995 Jun;22(6):1193–1196. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. McHorney C. A. Generic health measurement: past accomplishments and a measurement paradigm for the 21st century. Ann Intern Med. 1997 Oct 15;127(8 Pt 2):743–750. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-127-8_part_2-199710151-00061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. McHorney C. A., Haley S. M., Ware J. E., Jr Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning Scale (PF-10): II. Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Apr;50(4):451–461. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00424-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Nordenskiöld U., Grimby G., Hedberg M., Wright B., Linacre J. M. The structure of an instrument for assessing the effects of assistive devices and altered working methods in women with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 1996 Oct;9(5):358–367. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(199610)9:5<358::aid-anr1790090504>3.0.co;2-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Prieto L., Alonso J., Ferrer M., Antó J. M. Are results of the SF-36 health survey and the Nottingham Health Profile similar? A comparison in COPD patients. Quality of Life in COPD Study Group. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Apr;50(4):463–473. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00420-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Silverstein B., Kilgore K. M., Fisher W. P., Harley J. P., Harvey R. F. Applying psychometric criteria to functional assessment in medical rehabilitation: I. Exploring unidimensionality. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1991 Aug;72(9):631–637. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Stucki G., Daltroy L., Katz J. N., Johannesson M., Liang M. H. Interpretation of change scores in ordinal clinical scales and health status measures: the whole may not equal the sum of the parts. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 Jul;49(7):711–717. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(96)00016-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Tennant A., Hillman M., Fear J., Pickering A., Chamberlain M. A. Are we making the most of the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire? Br J Rheumatol. 1996 Jun;35(6):574–578. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/35.6.574. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Tesio L., Granger C. V., Fiedler R. C. A unidimensional pain/disability measure for low-back pain syndromes. Pain. 1997 Feb;69(3):269–278. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(96)03268-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Thomeé R., Grimby G., Wright B. D., Linacre J. M. Rasch analysis of Visual Analog Scale measurements before and after treatment of Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome in women. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1995 Sep;27(3):145–151. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Wolfe F., Anderson J., Harkness D., Bennett R. M., Caro X. J., Goldenberg D. L., Russell I. J., Yunus M. B. Health status and disease severity in fibromyalgia: results of a six-center longitudinal study. Arthritis Rheum. 1997 Sep;40(9):1571–1579. doi: 10.1002/art.1780400905. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Wolfe F. Determinants of WOMAC function, pain and stiffness scores: evidence for the role of low back pain, symptom counts, fatigue and depression in osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia. Rheumatology (Oxford) 1999 Apr;38(4):355–361. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/38.4.355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Wolfe F., Hawley D. J. The longterm outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis: Work disability: a prospective 18 year study of 823 patients. J Rheumatol. 1998 Nov;25(11):2108–2117. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Wolfe F., Smythe H. A., Yunus M. B., Bennett R. M., Bombardier C., Goldenberg D. L., Tugwell P., Campbell S. M., Abeles M., Clark P. The American College of Rheumatology 1990 Criteria for the Classification of Fibromyalgia. Report of the Multicenter Criteria Committee. Arthritis Rheum. 1990 Feb;33(2):160–172. doi: 10.1002/art.1780330203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Wolfe F., Zwillich S. H. The long-term outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis: a 23-year prospective, longitudinal study of total joint replacement and its predictors in 1,600 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1998 Jun;41(6):1072–1082. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(199806)41:6<1072::AID-ART14>3.0.CO;2-G. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES