Cited by 2,201Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a demographic study

Open access
de Morton, Natalie A.·2009·Australian Journal of Physiotherapy

Abstract

Questions Does the PEDro scale measure only one construct ie, the methodological quality of clinical trials? What is the hierarchy of items of the PEDro scale from least to most adhered to? Is there any effect of year of publication of trials on item adherence? Are PEDro scale ordinal scores equivalent to interval data?Design Rasch analysis of two independent samples of 100 clinical trials from the PEDro database scored using the PEDro scale.Results Both samples of PEDro data showed fit to the Rasch model with no item misfit. The PEDro scale item hierarchy was the same in both samples, ranging from the most adhered to item random allocation, to the least adhered to item therapist blinding. There was no differential item functioning by year of publication. Original PEDro ordinal scores were highly correlated with transformed PEDro interval scores (r = 0.99).Conclusion The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials. It is valid to sum PEDro scale item scores to obtain a total score that can be treated as interval level measurement and subjected to parametric statistical analysis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0004-9514(09)70043-1

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Tennant, 2006, Unidimensionality matters! (A tale of two Smiths?), Rasch Measurement Transactions, 20, 1048

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
de Morton, N. A.
Venue
Australian Journal of Physiotherapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009
Volume
55
Issue
2
Pages
129-133
ISSN
0004-9514 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2127818482
Cited by
2,201
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 166 · 2025: 221 · 2024: 261 · 2023: 249 · 2022: 247 · 2021: 181 · 2020: 175 · 2019: 136 · 2018: 121 · 2017: 83 · 2016: 70 · 2015: 89 · 2014: 59 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 38
FWCI
36.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Australian Journal of Physiotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
PEDro scale, methodological quality, clinical trials, scale validity, Rasch analysis, item hierarchy, differential item functioning, randomization, publication year
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Random Allocation, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Physical Therapy Specialty

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review