Tables
Fit Statistics for the 5 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Modelsa
↵a RMSEA=root mean square error of approximation, CFI=comparative fit index, TLI=Tucker-Lewis index, SRMR=standardized root mean square residual. See eFigures 1–5 for descriptions of the models.
Results of Different Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models on the PRWE-NL Itemsa
↵a Factor loadings are completely standardized estimates. All factor loadings were statistically significant except those marked with an asterisk. PRWE-NL=Dutch version of the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation, G=general factor, g=group factor, λ=factor loading, ECV=explained common variance, α=Cronbach alpha, ωT=omega total, ωH=omega hierarchical, and ωS=omega subscale. † P<.001.
Frequencies of the Wrist and Hand Injuries
Fit Statistics for the 5 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models in a Subgroup of Patients With Distal Radius, Carpal, or Metacarpal Fractures (n=235)a
↵a RMSEA=root mean square error of approximation, CFI=comparative fit index, TLI=Tucker-Lewis index, SRMR=standardized root mean square residual.
Results of Different Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models on the PRWE-NL Items in a Subgroup of Patients With Distal Radius, Carpal, or Metacarpal Fractures (n=235)
a Factor loadings are completely standardized estimates. All factor loadings were statistically significant except those marked with an asterisk. PRWE-NL=Dutch version of the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation, G=general factor, g=group factor, λ=factor loading, ECV=explained common variance, α=Cronbach alpha, ωT=omega total, ωH=omega hierarchical, and ωS=omega subscale. †P<.001. The covariance between the correlated factors in model 2 (pain vs function=0.90, P<.001) and 3 (pain vs specific activities=0.87, pain vs usual activities=0.91, and specific activities vs usual activities=0.96; all P values<.001) were all positive and statistically significant.
Supplementary Data
eFigures
Files in this Data Supplement:
- eFigures (PDF) (3 MB) -
This PDF contains the following supplements:
- eFigure 1. Model 1, a one-factor model of the Dutch version of the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE-NL)
- eFigure 2. Model 2, a correlated 2-factor model of the Dutch version of the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation
- eFigure 3. Model 3, a correlated 3-factor model of the Dutch version of the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation
- eFigure 4. Model 4, a bifactor model of the Dutch version of the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE-NL) with 1 general factor and 2 group factors
- eFigure 5. Model 5, a bifactor model of the Dutch version of the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE-NL) with 1 general factor and 3 group factors
Issue highlights
