Abstract:Background The 25-question Geriatric Locomotive Function Scale (GLFS-25) is widely used in daily clinical practice in evaluating locomotive syndrome (LS). The questionnaire contains 25 questions aiming to describe 6 aspects, including body pain, movement-related difficulty, usual care, social activities, cognitive status, and daily activities. However, its potential underlying latent factor structure of the questionnaire has not been fully examined so far. Methods Five hundred participants who were 60 years or older and were able to walk independently with or without a cane but had complaints of musculoskeletal disorders were recruited face to face at the out-patient ward of Aichi Medical University Hospital between April 2018 and June 2019. All participants completed the GLFS-25. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models (single-factor model, 6-factor model as designed by the developers of the GLFS-25) were fitted and compared using Mplus 8.3 with a maximum likelihood minimization function. Modification indices, standardized expected parameter change were used, a standard strategy for scale development was followed in the search for an alternative and simpler model that could well fit the collected data. Cronbach’s α and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were also calculated. Results Mean (standard deviation) participants age was 72.6 (7.4) years old; 63.6% of them were women. Under the current criteria, 132 (26.4%) and 262 (52.4%) of the study subjects would be classified as LS stage 1 and stage 2, respectively. Overall, the Cronbach’s α (95% CI) for GLFS-25 evaluated using these data was 0.959 (0.953, 0.964). The single- and 6-factor models were rejected due to poor fit. The alternative models with either full 25 questions or a shortened GLFS-16 were found to fit the data better. These alternative models included three latent factors (body pain, movement-related difficulty, and psycho-social complication) and allowed for cross-loading and residual correlations. Discussion The findings of the CFA models provided evidence that the factor structure of the GLFS-25 might be simpler than the 6-factor model as suggested by the designers. The complex relationships between the latent factors and the observed items may also indicate that individual sub-scale use or simply combining the raw scores for evaluation is likely to be inadequate or unsatisfactory. Thus, future revisions of the scoring algorithm or questions of the GLFS-25 may be required.

Moving Beyond Likert and Traditional Forced-Choice Scales: A Comprehensive Investigation of the Graded Forced-Choice Format.

Though Forced, Still Valid: Psychometric Equivalence of Forced-Choice and Single-Statement Measures

Though Forced, Still Valid: Examining the Psychometric Performance of Forced-Choice Measurement of Personality in Children and Adolescents

Integration of the Forced-Choice Questionnaire and the Likert Scale: A Simulation Study.

Peer Review #2 of "assessment of Locomotive Syndrome among Older Individuals: a Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the 25-Question Geriatric Locomotive Function Scale (V0.3)"

A ranking forced choice diagnostic classification model for psychological assessment using forced choice questionnaires

Assessment of Locomotive Syndrome among Older Individuals: a Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the 25-Question Geriatric Locomotive Function Scale

Controlling for Response Biases in Self-Report Scales: Forced-Choice vs. Psychometric Modeling of Likert Items

The Generalized Thurstonian Unfolding Model (GTUM): Advancing the Modeling of Forced-Choice Data

On the Validity of Forced Choice Scores Derived From the Thurstonian Item Response Theory Model

The Likert Scale Revisited

Can Likert scales predict choices? Testing the congruence between using Likert scale and comparative judgment on measuring attribution

Detecting Careless Responding in Multidimensional Forced-Choice Questionnaires

Linear Factor Analytic Thurstonian Forced-Choice Models: Current Status and Issues

An Item Response Theory Model for Incorporating Response Times in Forced-Choice Measures

Can Forced-Choice Response Format Reduce Faking of Socially Aversive Personality Traits?

Why Forced-Choice and Likert Items Provide the Same Information on Personality, Including Social Desirability

Adaptive testing with the GGUM-RANK multidimensional forced choice model: Comparison of pair, triplet, and tetrad scoring

Equally vs. unequally keyed blocks in forced-choice questionnaires: Implications on validity and reliability

What are you comparing it to? Investigating order effects in presentation of multidimensional forced choice personality items

Development and validation of the general regulatory focus measure forced choice scale (GRFM-FC)