Clinical Interpretation of Computerized Adaptive Test-Generated Outcome Measures in Patients With Knee Impairments

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 90, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 1340-1348

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

^a Focus on Therapeutic Outcomes Inc   (United States)

^b REHABILITATION INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPUTERIZED ADAPTIVE TESTING; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HUMAN; KNEE DISEASE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHYSIOTHERAPY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; JOINT DISEASES; KNEE JOINT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICAL THERAPY MODALITIES; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; SOFTWARE;

EID: 67849096886     PISSN: 00039993     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.02.008     Document Type: Article

References (58)

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. de Vet H.C., Terwee C.B., Ostelo R.W., Beckerman H., Knol D.L., and Bouter L.M. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4 (2006) 54
5. Jette A.M., Tao W., Norweg A., and Haley S. Interpreting rehabilitation outcome measurements. J Rehabil Med 39 (2007) 585-590
6. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century (2001), National Academy Pr, Washington (DC)
7. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 4 (2006) 79-98
8. Johnson D.A. Pay for performance: ACG guide for physicians. Am J Gastroenterol 102 (2007) 2119-2122
9. Hart D.L., and Connolly J.B. Pay-for-performance for physical therapy and occupational therapy: Medicare Part B services. Health and Human Services/Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (2006). http://www.cms.hhs.gov/TherapyServices/downloads/P4PFinalReport06-01-06.pdf Accessed April 29, 2009
10. Liang M.H. Longitudinal construct validity: establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med Care 38 9 Suppl (2000) II84-II90
11. 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
12. Hart D.L., Wang Y.C., Stratford P.W., and Mioduski J.E. Computerized adaptive test for patients with knee impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. J Clin Epidemiol 61 (2008) 1113-1124
13. 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
14. Swinkels I.C., van den Ende C.H., de Bakker D., et al. Clinical databases in physical therapy. Physiother Theory Pract 23 (2007) 153-167
15. 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
16. 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
17. Stratford P.W. Getting more from the literature: estimating the standard error of measurement from reliability studies. Physiother Can 56 (2004) 27-30
18. 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) 97-105
19. 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
20. World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability, and health (2001), World Health Organization, Geneva
21. Schmitt J.S., and Di Fabio R.P. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol 57 (2004) 1008-1018
22. Hays R.D., Brodsky M., Johnston M.F., Spritzer K.L., and Hui K.K. Evaluating the statistical significance of health-related quality-of-life change in individual patients. Eval Health Prof 28 (2005) 160-171
23. Lord F.M. Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems (1980), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale
24. Linacre J.M. Estimating measures with known polytomous item difficulties. Rasch Meas Trans 12 (1998) 638
25. Jacobson N.S., and Truax P. Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol 59 (1991) 12-19
26. Beaton D.E., Bombardier C., Katz J.N., and Wright J.G. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 54 (2001) 1204-1217
27. Deyo R.A., and Patrick D.L. The significance of treatment effects: the clinical perspective. Med Care 33 4 Suppl (1995) AS286-AS291
28. 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
29. Kazis L.E., Anderson J.J., and Meenan R.F. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 27 3 Suppl (1989) S178-S189
30. Stratford P.W., and Riddle D.L. Assessing sensitivity to change: choosing the appropriate change coefficient. Health Qual Life Outcomes 3 (2005) 23
31. 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
32. 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
33. 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
34. 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
35. Arnould C., Penta M., Renders A., and Thonnard J.L. ABILHAND-Kids: a measure of manual ability in children with cerebral palsy. Neurology 63 (2004) 1045-1052
36. Kielhofner G., Dobria L., Forsyth K., and Basu S. The construction of keyforms for obtaining instantaneous measures from the occupational performance history interview rating scales. Occup Ther J Res 25 (2005) 1-10
37. Woodbury M.L., and Velozo C.A. Potential for outcomes to influence practice and support clinical competency. OT Pract 10 (2005) 7-8
38. Stineman M.G., Ross R.N., Fiedler R., Granger C.V., and Maislin G. Staging functional independence validity and applications. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 84 (2003) 38-45
39. Stineman M.G., Ross R.N., Fiedler R., Granger C.V., and Maislin G. Functional Independence Staging: conceptual foundation, face validity, and empirical derivation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 84 (2003) 29-37
40. Tao W., Haley S.M., Coster W.J., Ni P., and Jette A.M. An exploratory analysis of functional staging using an item response theory approach. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 89 (2008) 1046-1053
41. Perry J., Garrett M., Gronley J.K., and Mulroy S.J. Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke 26 (1995) 982-989
42. Andrich D.A. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 43 (1978) 561-573
43. 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
44. In: Wainer H. (Ed). Computerized adaptive testing: a primer. 2nd ed. (2000), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah
45. Jette A.M., Haley S.M., Tao W., et al. Prospective evaluation of the AM-PAC-CAT in outpatient rehabilitation settings. Phys Ther 87 (2007) 385-398
46. Deutscher D., Hart D.L., Horn S.D., Dickstein R., 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
47. Gandek B., Sinclair S.J., Jette A.M., and Ware J.E. Development and initial psychometric evaluation of the participation measure for post-acute care (PM-PAC). Am J Phys Med Rehabil 86 (2007) 57-71
48. Kopec J.A., Badii M., McKenna M., Lima V.D., Sayre E.C., and Dvorak M. Computerized adaptive testing in back pain: validation of the CAT-5D-QOL. Spine 33 (2008) 1384-1390
49. Hart D.L., Wang Y.C., Stratford P.W., and Mioduski J.E. Computerized adaptive test for patients with hip impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 89 (2008) 2129-2139
50. Hart D.L., Wang Y.C., Stratford P.W., and Mioduski J.E. Computerized adaptive test for patients with foot or ankle impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. Qual Life Res 17 (2008) 1081-1091
51. Husted J.A., Cook R.J., Farewell V.T., and Gladman D.D. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 53 (2000) 459-468
52. Stratford P.W., Binkley J., Soloman P., Finch E., Gill C., and Moreland J. Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire. Phys Ther 76 (1996) 359-368
53. 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
54. Stratford P.W., Binkley J.M., Riddle D.L., and Guyatt G.H. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris back pain questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther 78 (1998) 1186-1196
55. Goldsmith C.H., Boers M., Bombardier C., and Tugwell P. Criteria for clinically important changes in outcomes: development, scoring and evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis patient and trial profiles. OMERACT Committee. J Rheumatol 20 (1993) 561-565
56. Lauridsen H.H., Hartvigsen J., Manniche C., Korsholm L., and Grunnet-Nilsson N. Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 7 (2006) 82
57. Ostelo R.W., Deyo R.A., Stratford P., et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine 33 (2008) 90-94
58. Bland J.M., and Altman D.G. Statistic notes: regression towards the mean. Br Med J 308 (1994) 1499