Computerized adaptive test for patients with knee impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 61, Issue 11, 2008, Pages 1113-1124

  Hart, Dennis L ^a   Wang, Ying Chih ^a   Stratford, Paul W ^b   Mioduski, Jerome E ^a  

^a Focus on Therapeutic Outcomes Inc   (United States)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Computerized adaptive testing; Functional status change; Item response theory; Lower Extremity Functional Scale; Outcomes; Rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPUTERIZED ADAPTIVE TESTING; EXERCISE; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HUMAN; KNEE DISEASE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PHYSIOTHERAPY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PSYCHOMETRY; REHABILITATION CARE; SECONDARY ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; VALIDITY;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; FEMALE; HUMANS; JOINT DISEASES; KNEE JOINT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTPATIENT CLINICS, HOSPITAL; PHYSICAL THERAPY MODALITIES; PSYCHOMETRICS; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 52149103006     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.01.005     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Fliege H., Becker J., Walter O.B., Bjorner J.B., Klapp B.F., and Rose M. Development of a computer-adaptive test for depression (D-CAT). Qual Life Res 14 (2005) 2277-2291
2. Kosinski M., Bjorner J.B., Ware Jr. J.E., Sullivan E., and Straus W.L. An evaluation of a patient-reported outcomes found computerized adaptive testing was efficient in assessing osteoarthritis impact. J Clin Epidemiol 59 (2006) 715-723
3. 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 9 Suppl (2000) II73-II82
4. In: Mills C.N., Potenza M.T., Fremer J.J., and Ward W.C. (Eds). Computer-based testing. Building the foundation for future assessments (2002), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ
5. In: Sands W.A., Waters B.K., and McBride J.R. (Eds). Computerized adaptive testingFrom inquiry to operation (1997), American Psychological Association, Washington, DC
6. In: Wainer H. (Ed). Computerized adaptive testing. A primer. 2nd edition (2000), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ
7. Hambleton R.K., Swaminathan H., and Rogers H.J. Fundamentals of item response theory (1991), Sage, Newbury Park, CA
8. Hays R.D., Morales L.S., and Reise S.P. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 38 9 Suppl (2000) II28-II42
9. Bjorner J.B., Kosinski M., and Ware Jr. J.E. The feasibility of applying item response theory to measures of migraine impact: a re-analysis of three clinical studies. Qual Life Res 12 (2003) 887-902
10. Cella D., Yount S., Rothrock N., Gershon R., Cook K., Reeve B., et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care 45 5 Suppl. 1 (2007) S3-S11
11. Hambleton R.K. Emergence of item response modeling in instrument development and data analysis. Med Care 38 9 Suppl (2000) II60-II65
12. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century (2001), National Academy Press, Washington, DC
13. Institute of Medicine. Rewarding provider performance: aligning incentives in medicare (2006), National Academies Press, Washington, DC
14. Porter M.E., and Teisberg E.O. Redefining health care. Creating value-based competition on results (2006), Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA
15. Lord F.M., and Novick M.R. Statistical theories of mental test scores (1968), Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
16. Lord F. Some test theory for tailored testing. In: Holtzman W. (Ed). Computer-assisted instruction, testing, and guidance (1970), Harper and Row, New York, NY 139-183
17. Ware Jr. J.E., Kosinski M., Bjorner J.B., Bayliss M.S., Batenhorst A., Dahlof C.G., et al. Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact. Qual Life Res 12 (2003) 935-952
18. Jette A.M., Haley S.M., Tao W., Ni P., Moed R., Meyers D., et al. Prospective evaluation of the AM-PAC-CAT in outpatient rehabilitation settings. Phys Ther 87 (2007) 385-398
19. McHorney C.A. Generic health measurement: past accomplishments and a measurement paradigm for the 21st century. Ann Intern Med 127 8 Pt 2 (1997) 743-750
20. Patrick D.L., and Chiang Y.P. Convening health outcomes methodologists. Med Care 38 9 Suppl (2000) II3-II6
21. Revicki D.A., and Cella D.F. Health status assessment for the twenty-first century: item response theory, item banking and computer adaptive testing. Qual Life Res 6 (1997) 595-600
22. Dijkers M.P. A computer adaptive testing simulation applied to the FIM instrument motor component. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 84 (2003) 384-393
23. Gardner W., Kelleher K.J., and Pajer K.A. Multidimensional adaptive testing for mental health problems in primary care. Med Care 40 (2002) 812-823
24. Haley S.M., Ni P., Hambleton R.K., Slavin M.D., and Jette A.M. Computer adaptive testing improved accuracy and precision of scores over random item selection in a physical functioning item bank. J Clin Epidemiol 59 (2006) 1174-1182
25. Hart D.L., Cook K.F., Mioduski J.E., Teal C.R., and Crane P.K. Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with shoulder impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function. J Clin Epidemiol 59 (2006) 290-298
26. Hart D.L., Mioduski J.E., and Stratford P.W. Simulated computerized adaptive tests for measuring functional status were efficient with good discriminant validity in patients with hip, knee, or foot/ankle impairments. J Clin Epidemiol 58 (2005) 629-638
27. Hart D.L., Mioduski J.E., Werneke M.W., and Stratford P.W. Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with lumbar spine impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function. J Clin Epidemiol 59 (2006) 947-956
28. Haley S.M., Fragala-Pinkham M., and Ni P. Sensitivity of a computer adaptive assessment for measuring functional mobility changes in children enrolled in a community fitness programme. Clin Rehabil 20 (2006) 616-622
29. Ware J.E., Gandek B., Sinclair S.J., and Bjorner J. Item response theory in computer adaptive testing: implications for outcomes measurement in rehabilitation. Rehabil Psychol 50 (2005) 71-78
30. Deutscher D., Hart D.L., Dickstein R., Horn S.D., and Gutvirtz M. Implementing an integrated electronic outcomes and electronic health record process to create a foundation for clinical practice improvement. Phys Ther 88 (2008) 270-285
31. Hart D.L., and Connolly J.B. Pay-for-performance for physical therapy and occupational therapy: medicare part B services. Grant #18-P-93066/9-01. Health & Human Services/Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2006)
32. Ader D.N. Developing the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care 45 5 Suppl. 1 (2007) S1-S2
33. Haley S.M., Coster W.J., Andres P.L., Kosinski M., and Ni P. Score comparability of short forms and computerized adaptive testing: simulation study with the activity measure for post-acute care. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 85 (2004) 661-666
34. Haley S.M., Coster W.J., Andres P.L., Ludlow L.H., Ni P., Bond T.L., et al. Activity outcome measurement for postacute care. Med Care 42 1 Suppl (2004) I49-I61
35. American Physical Therapy Association. Guide to physical therapist practice. Phys Ther 81 (2001) 1-768
36. Resnik L., and Hart D.L. Using clinical outcomes to identify expert physical therapists. Phys Ther 83 (2003) 990-1002
37. Werneke M.W., and Hart D.L. Centralization phenomenon as a prognostic factor for chronic low back pain and disability. Spine 26 (2001) 758-764
38. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 2007 Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI). Physician quality measures (2007), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
39. Dobrzykowski E.A., and Nance T. The Focus On Therapeutic Outcomes (FOTO) Outpatient Orthopedic Rehabilitation Database: results of 1994-1996. J Rehabil Outcomes Meas 1 (1997) 56-60
40. Swinkels I.C.S., van den Ende C.H.M., de Bakker D., van der Wees J., Hart D.L., Deutscher D., et al. Clinical databases in physical therapy. Physiother Theory Pract 23 (2007) 153-167
41. Binkley J.M., Stratford P.W., Lott S.A., and Riddle D.L. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. Phys Ther 79 (1999) 371-383
42. Alcock G.K., and Stratford P.W. Validation of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale on athletic subjects with ankle sprains. Physiother Can 54 (2002) 233-240
43. Stratford P.W. Getting more from the literature: Estimating the standard error of measurement from reliability studies. Physiother Can 56 (2004) 27-30
44. Stratford P.W., Binkley J.M., Watson J., and Heath-Jones T. Validation of the LEFS on patients with total joint arthroplasty. Physiother Can 52 (2000) 97-205
45. Stratford P.W., Hart D.L., Binkley J.M., Kennedy D.M., Alcock G.K., and Hanna S.E. Interpreting lower extremity functional status scores. Physiother Can 57 (2005) 154-162
46. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (2001), World Health Organization, Geneva
47. Hart A.C., and Stegman M.S. ICD-9-CM 2008 Expert. 6th edition (2007), Ingenix, Salt Lake City, UT
48. Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 43 (1978) 561-573
49. Millsap R.E., and Everson H.T. Methodology review: statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Appl Psychol Meas 17 (1993) 287-334
50. Crane P.K., Hart D.L., Gibbons L.E., and Cook K.F. A 37-item shoulder functional status item pool had negligible differential item functioning. J Clin Epidemiol 59 (2006) 478-484
51. Thissen D., and Mislevy R.J. Testing algorithms. In: Wainer H. (Ed). Computerized adaptive testing: a primer. 2nd edition (2000), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ 101-134
52. Hart D.L., and Mioduski J.E. CAT development and testing software user's guide (2006), FOTO, Inc, Knoxville, TN
53. Lord F.M. Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems (1980), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ
54. Linacre J.M. Estimating measures with known polytomous item difficulties. Rasch Meas Trans 12 (1998) 638
55. Folk V.G., and Smith R.L. Models for delivery of CBTs. In: Mills C.N., Potenza M.T., Fremer J.J., and Ward W.C. (Eds). Computer-based testing building the foundation for future assessments (2002), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ 41-66
56. Groll D.L., To T., Bombardier C., and Wright J.G. The development of a comorbidity index with physical function as the outcome. J Clin Epidemiol 58 (2005) 595-602
57. Shapiro S., and Wilk M.B. An analysis of variance test for normality. Biometrika 52 (1965) 591-611
58. Jette D.U., and Jette A.M. Physical therapy and health outcomes in patients with spinal impairments. Phys Ther 76 (1996) 930-945
59. Jette D.U., and Jette A.M. Physical therapy and health outcomes in patients with knee impairments. Phys Ther 76 (1996) 1178-1187
60. Resnik L., Feng Z., and Hart D.L. State regulation and the delivery of physical therapy services. Health Serv Res 41 4 Pt 1 (2006) 1296-1316
61. Hart D.L. The power of outcomes: FOTO industrial outcomes tool-initial assessment. Work 16 (2001) 39-51
62. Hart D.L., and Dobrzykowski E.A. Influence of orthopaedic clinical specialist certification on clinical outcomes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 30 (2000) 183-193
63. Hart D.L., and Dobrzykowski E.A. Impact of exercise history on health status outcomes in patients with musculoskeletal impairments. Orthop Phys Ther Clin North Am 9 (2000) 1-16
64. Beaton D.E., Bombardier C., Katz J.N., and Wright J.G. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 54 (2001) 1204-1217
65. Liang M.H. Longitudinal construct validity: establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med Care 38 9 Suppl (2000) II84-II90
66. Wright J.G., and Young N.L. A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 50 (1997) 239-246
67. Kirshner B., and Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis 38 (1985) 27-36
68. Riddle D.L., Stratford P.W., and Binkley J.M. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 2. Phys Ther 78 (1998) 1197-1207
69. Beaton D.E., Hogg-Johnson S., and Bombardier C. Evaluating changes in health status: reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol 50 (1997) 79-93
70. Liang M.H. Evaluating measurement responsiveness. J Rheumatol 22 (1995) 1191-1192
71. Stratford P.W., Binkley F.M., and Riddle D.L. Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther 76 (1996) 1109-1123
72. Hsieh Y.W., Wang C.H., Wu S.C., Chen P.C., Sheu C.F., and Hsieh C.L. Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the Barthel Index in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 21 (2007) 233-238
73. Stratford P.W., and Riddle D.L. Assessing sensitivity to change: choosing the appropriate change coefficient. Health Qual Life Outcomes 3 (2005) 23
74. Crosby R.D., Kolotkin R.L., and Williams G.R. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 56 (2003) 395-407
75. Jaeschke R., Singer J., and Guyatt G.H. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10 (1989) 407-415
76. Lingard E.A., and Riddle D.L. Impact of psychological distress on pain and function following knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89 (2007) 1161-1169
77. Tubach F., Ravaud P., Baron G., Falissard B., Logeart I., Bellamy N., et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 64 (2005) 29-33
78. Tubach F., Ravaud P., Beaton D., Boers M., Bombardier C., Felson D.T., et al. Minimal clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state for subjective outcome measures in rheumatic disorders. J Rheumatol 34 (2007) 1188-1193
79. Deyo R.A., and Centor R.M. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 39 (1986) 897-906
80. Hanley J.A., and McNeil B.J. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143 (1982) 29-36
81. George S.Z., Fritz J.M., Bialosky J.E., and Donald D.A. The effect of a fear-avoidance-based physical therapy intervention for patients with acute low back pain: results of a randomized clinical trial. Spine 28 23 (2003) 2551-2560
82. Chakravarty E.F., Bjorner J.B., and Fries J.F. Improving patient reported outcomes using item response theory and computerized adaptive testing. J Rheumatol 34 (2007) 1426-1431
83. Dodd B.G., Koch W.R., and De Ayala R.J. Operational characheristics of adaptive testing procedures using the Graded Response Model. Appl Psychol Meas 13 (1989) 129-143
84. Martin M., Kosinski M., Bjorner J.B., Ware Jr. J.E., Maclean R., and Li T. Item response theory methods can improve the measurement of physical function by combining the modified health assessment questionnaire and the SF-36 physical function scale. Qual Life Res 16 (2007) 647-660
85. 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
86. Hart D.L., and Wright B.D. Development of an index of physical functional health status in rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 83 (2002) 655-665
87. Jette A.M., Haley S.M., and Ni P. Comparison of functional status tools used in post-acute care. Health Care Financ Rev 24 3 (2003) 13-24
88. McHorney C.A., and Cohen A.S. Equating health status measures with item response theory: illustrations with functional status items. Med Care 38 9 Suppl (2000) II43-II59
89. Steinberg L., Thissen D., and Wainer H. Validity. In: Wainer H. (Ed). Computerized adaptive testing: a primer. 2nd edition (2000), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ 185-229
90. Hart D.L. Assessment of unidimensionality of physical functioning in patients receiving therapy in acute, orthopedic outpatient centers. J Outcome Meas 4 (2000) 413-430
91. Reeve B.B., Hays R.D., Bjorner J.B., Cook K.F., Crane P.K., Teresi J.A., et al. Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care 45 5 Suppl. 1 (2007) S22-S31
92. American Medical Association. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 2007, professional edition (2006), American Medical Association, Chicago, IL