Adaptive short forms for outpatient rehabilitation outcome assessment

American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 87, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 842-852

  Jette, Alan M ^a   Haley, Stephen M ^a   Ni, Pengsheng ^a   Moed, Richard ^b  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b CREcare LLC   (United States)

Author keywords

Item response theory; Outcomes assessment; Physical functioning; Rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

ACTIVITY MEASURE FOR POST ACUTE CARE; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OUTPATIENT CARE; PATIENT MONITORING; REHABILITATION MEDICINE; SCORING SYSTEM; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DISABLED PERSON; MIDDLE AGED; OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; REHABILITATION CENTER; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WALKING DIFFICULTY;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; AMBULATORY CARE FACILITIES; DISABLED PERSONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOBILITY LIMITATION; QUESTIONNAIRES; REHABILITATION CENTERS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 53049092816     PISSN: 08949115     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e318186b7ca     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Johnson M, Holthaus D, Harvell J, et al: A Medicare post-acute care quality measurement: Final report. Report prepared for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, 2001
2. Kuhn H: Testimony of Herb Kuhn, Director, Center for Medicare Management, Centers for Medicare Medicaid Services. US House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, Hearing on Post Acute Care, June 16, 2005
3. National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (US): Classifying and Reporting Functional Status. National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, 2002
4. Harvey R, Jellinek HM: Functional performance assessment: A program approach. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1981;62:456-61
5. Shaughnessy P, Crisler KS, Schlenker RE: 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
6. Ware J, Sherbourne C: The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36): Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-83
7. Guide for the Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation (including the FIMTM instrument), Version 5.1. Buffalo, NY, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1997
8. Morris JN, Murphy K, Nonemaker S: Long-term Resident Care Assessment User's Manual. Version 2.0. Washington, American Health Care Association, 1995
9. Jette AM, Haley SM, Ni P: Comparison of functional status tools used in post-acute care. Health Care Financ Rev 2003;24:13-24
10. McHorney C: Health status assessment methods for adults: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Annu Rev Public Health 1999;20:309-35
11. McHorney C: Generic health measurement: Past accomplishments and a measurement paradigm for the 21st century. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:743-50
12. McHorney C, Cohen A: Equating health status measures with item response theory: Illustrations with functional status items. Med Care 2000;38:1143-1159
13. Coster W, Haley S, Jette A: Measuring patient-reported outcomes after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation settings. J Rehabil Med 2006;38:237-42
14. Buchanan JL, Andres PL, Haley SM, et al: An assessment tool translation study. Health Care Financ Rev 2003;24:45-60
15. Jette AM, Haley SM: Achieving uniformity in functional status monitoring across PAC settings. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, 2006
16. Weiss D: Improving measurement quality and efficiency with adaptive testing. Appl Psychol Meas 1982;6:473-92
17. Velozo CA, Kielhofner G, Lai JS: The use of Rasch analysis to produce scale-free measurement of functional ability. Am J Occup Ther 1999;53:83-90
18. Wainer H: Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000
19. Hays R, Morales L, Reise S: Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 2000;38:II28-II42
20. Cella D, Chang C-H: A discussion of item response theory and its applications in health status assessment. Med Care 2000;38:II66-II72
21. Hambleton RK: Emergence of item response modeling in instrument development and data analysis. Med Care 2000;38:1160-1165
22. Cella D, Gershon R, Lai JS, et al: The future of outcome measurement: Item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment. Qual Life Res 2007;16(suppl 1):133-41
23. Hambleton RK: Applications of item response theory to improve health outcomes assessment: Developing item banks, linking instruments, and computer-adaptive testing, in Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder C (eds): Outcomes Assessment in Cancer. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 2005
24. Hambleton R, Swainathan H: Item banking, in Hambleton R, Swainathan H (eds): Item Response Theory: Principles and Applications. Boston, MA, Kluwer Nijoff Publishing, 1985
25. Revicki DA, Cella DF: Health status assessment for the twenty-first century: Item response theory, item banking and computer adaptive testing. Qual Life Res 1997;6:595-600
26. Bode RK, Lai JS, Cella D, et al: Issues in the development of an item bank. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84:S52-S60
27. Haley SM, Coster WJ, Andres PL, et al: Activity outcome measurement for post-acute care. Med Care 2004;42(suppl 1):I49-I69
28. Haley SM, Andres PL, Coster WJ, et al: Short-form activity measure for post-acute care (AM-PAC). Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:649-60
29. Coster WJ, Haley SM, Andres PL, et al: Refining the conceptual basis for rehabilitation outcome measurement: Personal care and instrumental activities domain. Med Care 2004;42(suppl 1):I62-I72
30. Haley SM, Ni P, Hambleton RK, et al: Computer adaptive testing improves accuracy and precision of scores over random item selection in a physical functioning item bank. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:1174-1182
31. Jette A, Haley S, Tao W, et al: Prospective evaluation of the AM-PAC-CAT in outpatient rehabilitation settings. Phys Ther 2007;87:385-98
32. Stone CA: Monte-Carlo based null distribution for an alternative fit statistic. J Educ Meas 2000;37:58-75
33. Stone CA: Empirical power and type I error rates for a goodness-of-fit statistic based on posterior expectations and resampling-based inference. Educ Psychol Meas 2003;63:566-83
34. Stone CA, Zhang B: Comparing three new approaches for assessing goodness-of-fit in IRT models. J Educ Meas 2003;4:331-52
35. van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK: Handbook of Modem Item Response Theory. New York, Springer, 1997
36. Murnki E: Information functions of the generalized partial credit model. Appl Psychol Meas 1993;17:351-63
37. Dodd BG, Koch WR: Effects of variations in item step values on item and test information in the partial credit model. Appl Psychol Meas 1987;11:371-84
38. Revuelta J, Ximenez MC, Olea J: Psychometric and psychological effects of item selection and review on computerized testing. Educ Psychol Meas 2003;63:791-808
39. Fisher W: Physical disability construct convergence across instruments: Towards a universal metric. J Outcome Meas 1997;1:87-113
40. Smith R, Taylor P: Equating rehabilitation outcome scales: Developing common metrics. J Appl Meas 2004;5:229-42
41. Siebens H, Andres P, Ni P, et al: Measuring physical function in patients with complex medical and post-surgical conditions: A computer adaptive approach. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:741-48
42. Haley SM, Coster WJ, Andres PL, et al: Score comparability of short-forms and computerized adaptive testing: Simulation study with the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC). Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:661-66
43. Jette AM, Keysor J, Coster W, et al: Beyond function: Predicting participation in a rehabilitation cohort. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:2087-94
44. Keysor J, Jette A, Coster W, et al: Association of environmental factors with levels of home and community participation in an adult rehabilitation cohort. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006;87:1566-75
45. Coster W, Haley SM, Jette A, et al: Predictors of basic and instrumental activities of daily living performance in persons receiving rehabilitation services. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007;88:928-35