Computer adaptive testing: A strategy for monitoring stroke rehabilitation across settings

Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 33-39

  Andres, Patricia L ^a   Black Schaffer, Randie M ^b,c   Ni, Pengsheng ^a   Haley, Stephen M ^a  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b and Red Sox Foundation and Massachusetts General Hospital Home Base Program   (United States)

^c HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Outcome measurement; Stroke rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER ADAPTIVE TESTING; COMPUTER SYSTEM; FUNCTION TEST; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; REHABILITATION; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STROKE; STROKE REHABILITATION;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DISABLED PERSONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MONITORING, PHYSIOLOGIC; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 2542506675     PISSN: 10749357     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1310/CUAN-ML5R-FWHD-0EQL     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics - 2004 Update. Dallas, TX: American Heart Association; 2004
2. Prevalence of disabilities and associated health conditions among adults in the United States, 1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2001;50(7):120-125.
3. Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Sherwin FS, Zielezny M, Tashman JS. A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer MJ, ed. Rehabilitation Outcomes: Analysis and Measurement. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes; 1987:137-147.
4. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. MD State Med J. 1965;14:61-65.
5. Granger C, Ottenbacher K, Baker J, Sehgal A. Reliability of a brief outpatient functional outcome assessment measure. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1995; 74:469-475.
6. Duncan P, Lai S, Bode R, Perera S, DeRosa J, Investigators GA. Stroke Impact Scale-16: a brief assessment of physical function. Neurology. 2003; 60:291-296.
7. Ware JS, Kisinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute; 1993.
8. Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. In: Eisenberg MG, Grzesiak RC, eds. Advances in Clinical Rehabilitation. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1987:6-18.
9. Morris JN, Murphy K, Nonemaker S. Long-Term Resident Care Assessment User's Manual. Version 2.0. Washington, DC: American Health Care Association; 1995.
10. Shaughnessy P, Crisler K, Schlenker R. Medicare's Oasis: Standardized Outcome and Assessment Information Set for Home Health Care: Oasis-B. Denver, CO: Center for Health Services and Policy Research; 1997.
11. Duncan P, Wallace D, Lai S, Johnson D, Embretson S, Laster L. The Stroke Impact Scale version 2.0: evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke. 1999;10:2131-2140.
12. Holbrook M, Skilbeck C. An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age Ageing. 1983;12:166-170.
13. Whiting S, Lincoln N. An ADL assessment for stroke patients. Br J Occup Ther. 1980;43:44-46.
14. Nouri F, Lincoln N. An extended activities of daily living scale for stroke patients. Clin Rehabil. 1987;1:301-305.
15. National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics. Classifying and Reporting Functional Status. Atlanta, GA: Center for Disease Control and Prevention; 2001:1-17.
16. Wainer H, Dorans N, Flaugher R. Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1990.
17. Sands WA, Waters BK, McBride JR. Computerized Adaptive Testing: From Inquiry to Operation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1997.
18. Dijkers M. A computer adaptive testing simulation applied to the FIM instrument motor component. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;84(3):384-393.
19. Ware J. Conceptualization and measurement of health-related quality of life: comments on an evolving field. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;84(4 suppl 2):S43-51.
20. Haley S, Andres P, Kosinski M, Ni P. Scoring comparability of short-forms and computerized adaptive testing: an illustration with the activity measure for post-acute care (AM-PAC). Arch Phys Med Rehabil. In press.
21. Ware J, Bjorner J, 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. 2000;38(9):1173-1182.
22. Haley S, Coster W, Andres P, et al. Activity outcomes measurement for post-acute care. Med Care. 2004;42(1 suppl):149-161.
23. Organization WH. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.
24. Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP. Item response theory and health outcomes measurements in the 21st century. Med Care. 2000;38(suppl. II):1128-1142.
25. Coster W, Haley S, Andres P, Ludlow L, Bond T. Development of an item bank to assess rehabilitation outcomes I: personal care and instrumental items. Med Care. 2004;42(1 suppl):162-172.
26. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86: 420-428.