Score comparability of short forms and computerized adaptive testing: Simulation study with the activity measure for post-acute care

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 85, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 661-666

  Haley, Stephen M ^a   Coster, Wendy J ^a   Andres, Patricia L ^a   Kosinski, Mark ^b   Ni, Pengsheng ^a  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b QualityMetric Incorporated   (United States)

Author keywords

Activities of daily living; Outcomes research; Rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE TESTING; ADULT; ARTICLE; CITY; COGNITION; COMMUNITY; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH SERVICE; HOME CARE; HOSPITAL PATIENT; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; OUTPATIENT; PATIENT CARE; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SAMPLE; SCORING SYSTEM; SELF CARE; SIMULATION; SKILL; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; INTENSIVE CARE; METHODOLOGY; MULTICENTER STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUESTIONNAIRE; REHABILITATION; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

BOSTON; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; REHABILITATION; SUBACUTE CARE;

EID: 2342593230     PISSN: 00039993     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.08.097     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, Committee on Populations. Classifying and reporting functional status. 2002;US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington (DC)
2. Jette A.M., Haley S.M., Ni P. A comparison of functional outcome instruments used in postacute care. Health Care Serv Rev. 24:(3):2003;45-60
3. Haley S.M., Jette A.M. RRTC for measuring rehabilitation outcomes extending the frontier of rehabilitation outcome measurement and research. J Rehabil Outcome Meas. 4:2000;31-41
4. Cohen M.E., Marino R.J. The tools of disability outcomes research functional status measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 81:(12 Suppl 2):2000;S21-S29
5. Health Care Financing Association. Development for MDS-module for postacute care. 1999;American Health Care Association, Washington (DC)
6. Wilkerson D.L., Johnston M.V. Clinical program monitoring systems current capability and future directions. Fuhrer M.J. Assessing medical rehabilitation practices the promise of outcomes research. 1997;275-306 PH Brookes, Baltimore
7. Velozo C.A., Kielhofner G., Lai J.S. The use of Rasch analysis to produce scale-free measurement of functional ability. Am J Occup Ther. 53:1999;83-90
8. Johnston M.V., Stineman M., Velozo C.A. Outcomes research in medical rehabilitation foundations from the past and directions for the future. Fuhrer M.J. Assessing medical rehabilitation practices the promise of outcomes research. 1997;1-41 PH Brookes, Baltimore
9. Fisher W. Physical disability construct convergence across instruments towards a universal metric. J Outcome Meas. 1:1997;87-113
10. McHorney C. Generic health measurement past accomplishments and a measurement paradigm for the 21st century. Ann Intern Med. 127:1997;743-750
11. Cella D., Chang C.H. A discussion of item response theory and its applications in health status assessment. Med Care. 38:(9 Suppl):2000;II66-II72
12. Hays R., Morales L., Reise S. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care. 38:(9 Suppl):2000;II28-II42
13. Revicki D., Cella D. Health status assessment for the twenty-first century item response theory, item banking and computer adaptive testing. Qual Life Res. 6:1997;595-600
14. Ware J.E., Bjorner J.B., Kosinski M. Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing a brief summary of ongoing studies widely used headache impact scales. Med Care. 38:(9 Suppl):2000;II73- II82
15. Haley S.M., Andres P.L., Coster W.J., Kosinski M., Ni P., Jette A.M. Short-form Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 85:2004;649-660
16. Haley S.M., Coster W.J., Andres P.L., et al. Activity outcome measurement for postacute care. Med Care. 42:(1 Suppl):2004;I49-I61
17. World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability, and health ICF. 2001;WHO, Geneva
18. Lord F. Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. 1980;Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale
19. Linacre J.M., Wright B.D. A user's guide to WINSTEPS. 1999;MESA Pr, Chicago
20. Wainer H., Dorans N., Flaugher R., et al. Computerized adaptive testing a primer. 2000;Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah
21. Sands W.A., Waters B.K., McBride J.R. Computerized adaptive testing from inquiry to operation. 1997;American Psychological Association, Washington (DC)
22. Ware J. Conceptualization and measurement of health-related quality of life comments on an evolving field. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 84:(4 Suppl 2):2003;43-51
23. Andres P.L., Haley S.M., Ni P. Is patient-reported function reliable for monitoring postacute outcomes? Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 82:2003;614-621