An evaluation of a patient-reported outcomes found computerized adaptive testing was efficient in assessing osteoarthritis impact

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 59, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 715-723

  Kosinski, Mark ^a   Bjorner, Jakob B ^a,b   Ware Jr , John E ^a,c   Sullivan, Elizabeth ^d   Straus, Walter L ^d  

^a QualityMetric Incorporated   (United States)

^b NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE FOR THE WORKING ENVIRONMENT   (Denmark)

^c Health Assessment Lab   (United States)

^d MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment methods; Computerized adaptive testing; Disease impact; Health related quality of life; Item response theory; Osteoarthritis

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BODY BURDEN; BONE PAIN; CALIBRATION; COMPUTERIZED ADAPTIVE TESTING; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY; DISEASE SEVERITY; EMOTION; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL INFORMATION; OSTEOARTHRITIS; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCORING SYSTEM; SELF REPORT; SIMULATION; SOCIAL STATUS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; THEORY; WELLBEING; WORKING TIME;

ADAPTATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; DISABILITY EVALUATION; HUMANS; OSTEOARTHRITIS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 33744795979     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.019     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Lawrence R.C., Helmick C.G., Arnett F.C., et al. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and selected musculoskeletal disorders in the United States. Arthritis Rheum 41 (1998) 778-799
2. Yelin E. The economics of osteoarthritis. In: Brandt K., Doherty M., and Lohmander L.S. (Eds). Osteoarthritis (1998), Oxford University Press, New York 23-30
3. Katz W.A. Pharmacology and clinical experience with Tramadol in osteoarthritis. Drugs 52 Suppl 3 (1996) 39-47
4. Magni G., Marchetti M., Moreschi C., Merskey H., and Luchini S.R. Chronic musculoskeletal pain and depressive symptoms in the National Health and Nutrition Examination. I. Epidemiologic follow-up study. Pain 53 (1993) 163-168
5. Crook J., Rideout E., and Browne G. The prevalence of pain complaints in a general population. Pain 18 (1984) 299-314
6. Mili F., Helmick C.G., and Moriarty D.G. Health related quality of life among adults reporting arthritis: analysis of data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, US, 1996-99. J Rheumatol 30 (2003) 160-166
7. Kwoh C.K., O'Connor G.T., Regan-Smith M.G., et al. Concordance between clinician and patient assessment of physical and mental health status. J Rheumatol 19 (1992) 1031-1037
8. Katz N. The impact of pain management on quality of life. J Pain Symptom Manage 24 (2002) S38-S47
9. Bellamy N., Buchanan W.W., Goldsmith C.H., Campbell J., and Stitt L.W. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15 (1988) 1833-1840
10. Meenan R.F., Gertman P.M., and Mason J.H. Measuring health status in arthritis: the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales. Arthritis Rheum 23 (1980) 146-152
11. Jette A.M. The Functional Status Index: reliability and validity of a self-report functional disability measure. J Rheumatol 14 Suppl 15 (1987) 15-21
12. McHorney C.A., and Tarlov A.R. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?. Qual Life Res 4 (1995) 293-307
13. van der Linden W.J., and Glas C.A.W. Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice (2000), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
14. Wainer H., Dorans N.J., Flaugher R., et al. Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (1990), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ
15. Wainer H., Dorans N.J., Eignor D., et al. Computerized adaptive testing: a primer (2000), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ
16. Ware Jr. J.E., Kosinski M., Bjorner J.B., et al. Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact. Qual Life Res 12 (2003) 935-952
17. Bjorner J.B., Kosinski M., and Ware Jr. J.E. Using item response theory to calibrate the Headache Impact Test (HIT) to the metric of traditional headache scales. Qual Life Res 12 (2003) 981-1002
18. March L.M., Schwarz J.M., Carfrae B.H., and Bagge E. Clinical validation of self-reported osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 6 (1998) 87-93
19. Bjorner J.B., Kosinski M., and Ware Jr. J.E. Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: an application of item response theory to the headache impact test (HIT). Qual Life Res 12 (2003) 913-933
20. Ware Jr. J.E., and Sherbourne C.D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30 (1992) 473-483
21. Ware Jr. J.E., Bjorner J.B., and Kosinski M. Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: a brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales. Med Care 38 (2000) II73-II82
22. Ware Jr. J.E., Kosinski M., Dewey J.E., and Gandek B. How to score and interpret single-item health status measures: a manual for users of the SF-8 Health Survey (with a supplement on the SF-6 Health Survey) (2001), QualityMetric Incorporated, Lincoln, RI
23. van der Linden W.J., and Hambleton R.K. Handbook of modern item response theory (1997), Springer, Berlin
24. Fischer G.H., and Molenaar I.W. Rasch models-foundations, recent developments, and applications (1995), Springer-Verlag, Berlin
25. Masters G.N. A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika 47 (1982) 149-173
26. Muraki E. A generalized partial credit model. In: van der Linden W.J., and Hambleton R.K. (Eds). Handbook of modern item response theory (1997), Springer, Berlin 153-164
27. Samejima F. Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monogr Suppl (1969) 17
28. Maydeu-Olivares A., Drasgow F., and Mead A.D. Distinguishing among parametric item response models for polychotomous ordered data. Appl Psychol Measur 18 (1994) 245-256
29. Muraki E. Information functions of the generalized partial credit model. Appl Psychol Measur 17 (1993) 351-363
30. Muthen B.O., and Muthen L. Mplus user's guide (2001), Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles
31. Bock R.D., and Aitkin M. Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika 46 (1981) 443-459
32. Muraki E., and Bock R.D. Parscale-IRT based test scoring and item analysis for graded open-ended exercises and performance tasks (1996), Scientific Software Inc., Chicago
33. Orlando M., and Thissen D. Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Appl Psychol Measur 24 (2000) 50-64
34. Bock R.D., and Mislevy R.J. Adaptive EAP estimation of ability in a microcomputer environment. Appl Psychol Measur 6 (1982) 431-444
35. McHorney C.A., Ware Jr. J.E., and Raczek A.E. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 31 (1993) 247-263
36. Ware Jr. J.E., Kosinski M., Bayliss M.S., McHorney C.A., Rogers W.H., and Raczek A. Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 Health Profile and Summary Masures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care 33 (1995) AS264-AS279
37. Meenan R.F., Mason J.H., Anderson J.J., Guccione A.A., and Kazis L.E. AIMS2. The content and properties of s revised and expanded Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales Health Status Questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum 35 (1992) 1-10
38. Meenan R.F., Callahan L.F., and Helmick C.G. The National Arthritis Action Plan: a public health strategy for a looming epidemic. Arthritis Care Res 12 (1999) 79-81