Clinical interpretation of a lower-extremity functional scale-derived computerized adaptive test

Physical Therapy

Volumn 89, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 957-968

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

^a REHABILITATION INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^b Focus on Therapeutic Outcomes Inc   (United States)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; ARTHROPATHY; ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONVALESCENCE; DISABILITY; FEMALE; HIP; HUMAN; LEG; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOTHERAPY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; UNITED STATES; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; AMBULATORY CARE FACILITIES; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HIP JOINT; HUMANS; JOINT DISEASES; LOWER EXTREMITY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICAL THERAPY MODALITIES; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; SOFTWARE; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 70149098050     PISSN: 00319023     EISSN: 15386724     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20080359     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Fliege H, Becker J, Walter OB, et al. Development of a computer-adaptive test for depression (D-CAT). Qual Life Res. 2005; 14:2277-2291
2. Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Ware JE Jr, et al. An evaluation of a patient-reported outcomes found computerized adaptive testing was efficient in assessing osteoarthritis impact. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:715-723
3. Ware JE Jr, Bjorner JB, 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. 2000;38(9 suppl):II73-II82.
4. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, et al. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006; 4:54-58
5. Jette AM, Tao W, Norweg A, Haley S. Interpreting rehabilitation outcome measurements. J Rehabil Med. 2007;39:585-590
6. Deutscher D, Hart DL, Horn SD, et al. Implementing an integrated electronic outcomes and electronic health record process to create a foundation for clinical practice improvement. Phys Ther. 2008; 88:270-285
7. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
8. US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Guidance for industry: patientreported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:79-98
9. Hart DL, Connolly JB. Pay-for-performance for physical therapy and occupational therapy: Medicare Part B services. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/Therapy Services/downloads/P4PFinalReport06-01-06.pdf. 2006. Accessed June 5, 2009.
10. Resnik L, Liu D, Hart DL, Mor V. Benchmarking physical therapy clinic performance: statistical methods to enhance internal validity when using observational data. Phys Ther. 2008;88:1078-1087
11. Resnik L, Hart DL. Using clinical outcomes to identify expert physical therapists. Phys Ther. 2003;83:990-1002
12. Guide to Physical Therapist Practice. 2nd ed. Phys Ther. 2001;81:9-746
13. Johnson DA. Pay for performance: ACG guide for physicians. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:2119-2122
14. Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Lott SA, Riddle DL. The Lower-Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. Phys Ther. 1999;79:371-383
15. Stratford PW, Hart DL, Binkley JM, et al. Interpreting lower extremity functional status scores. Physiother Can. 2005;57: 154-162
16. Liang MH. Longitudinal construct validity: establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med Care. 2000;38(9 suppl):II84-II90.
17. Hart DL, Wang YC, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE. Computerized adaptive test for patients with foot or ankle impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:1081-1091
18. Hart DL, Wang YC, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE. Computerized adaptive test for patients with hip impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:2129-2139
19. Hart DL, Wang YC, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE. Computerized adaptive test for patients with knee impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:1113-1124
20. Hart DL, Mioduski JE, Stratford PW. 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. 2005 Jun;58:629-638
21. Hart DL, Cook KF, Mioduski JE, et al. Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with shoulder impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:290-298
22. Hart DL, Mioduski JE, Werneke MW, Stratford PW. Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with lumbar spine impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:947-956
23. Dobrzykowski EA, Nance T. The Focus On Therapeutic Outcomes (FOTO) outpatient orthopedic rehabilitation database: results of 1994-1996. J Rehabil Outcomes Meas. 1997;1:56-60
24. Swinkels IC, van den Ende CHM, de Bakker DH, et al. Clinical databases in physical therapy. Physiother Theory Pract. 2007; 23:153-167
25. Swinkels IC, Hart DL, Deutscher D, et al. Comparing patient characteristics and treatment processes in patients receiving physical therapy in the United States, Israel and the Netherlands: cross sectional analyses of data from three clinical databases. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:163-174
26. van der Linden WJ, Glas CAW, eds. Computerized Adaptive Testing: Theory and Practice. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2000.
27. Alcock GK, Stratford PW. Validation of the Lower-Extremity Functional Scale on athletic subjects with ankle sprains. Physiother Can. 2002;54:233-240
28. Stratford PW. Getting more from the literature: estimating the standard error of measurement from reliability studies. Physiother Can. 2004;56:27-30
29. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Watson J, Heath-Jones T. Validation of the LEFS on patients with total joint arthroplasty. Physiother Can. 2000;52:97-105
30. Millsap RE, Everson HT. Methodology review: statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Appl Psych Meas. 1993; 17:287-334
31. Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis. 1986;39:897-906
32. Lord FM. Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1980.
33. Linacre JM. Estimating measures with known polytomous item difficulties. Rasch Measurement Transactions. 1998;12:638.
34. Schmitt JS, Di Fabio RP. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57: 1008-1018
35. Hays RD, Brodsky M, Johnston MF, et al. Evaluating the statistical significance of health-related quality-of-life change in individual patients. Eval Health Prof. 2005;28: 160-171
36. Jacobson NS, Truax P. Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991;59:12-19
37. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:1204-1217
38. Barreca SR, Stratford PW, Lambert CL, et al. Test-retest reliability, validity, and sensitivity of the Chedoke arm and hand activity inventory: a new measure of upperlimb function for survivors of stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:1616-1622
39. Deyo RA, Patrick DL. The significance of treatment effects: the clinical perspective. Med Care. 1995;33(4 suppl):AS286-AS291.
40. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407-415
41. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27(3 suppl): S178-S189.
42. Stratford PW, Riddle DL. Assessing sensitivity to change: choosing the appropriate change coefficient. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:23-29
43. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:395-407
44. Hsieh YW, Wang CH, Wu SC, et al. Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the Barthel Index in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21:233-238
45. Perry J, Garrett M, Gronley JK, Mulroy SJ. Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke. 1995;26:982-989
46. Andrich DA. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:561-573
47. Mills CN, Potenza MT, Fremer JJ, Ward WC, eds. Computer-Based Testing: Building the Foundation for Future Assessments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002.
48. Wainer H, ed. Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000.
49. Jette AM, Haley SM, Tao W, et al. Prospective evaluation of the AM-PAC-CAT in outpatient rehabilitation settings. Phys Ther. 2007;87:385-398
50. Gandek B, Sinclair SJ, Jette AM, Ware JEJ. Development and initial psychometric evaluation of the participation measure for post-acute care (PM-PAC). Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;86:57-71
51. Kopec JA, Badii M, McKenna M, et al. Computerized adaptive testing in back pain: validation of the CAT-5D-QOL. Spine. 2008;33:1384-1390
52. Watson CJ, Propps M, Ratner J, et al. Reliability and responsiveness of the lower extremity functional scale and the anterior knee pain scale in patients with anterior knee pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2005;35:136-146
53. Beninato M, Gill-Body KM, Salles S, et al. Determination of the minimal clinically important difference in the FIM instrument in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:32-39
54. McHorney CA, Haley SM, Ware JEJ. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning Scale (PF-10), II: comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:451-461
55. Thissen D. Reliability and measurement precision. In: Wainer H, ed. Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000:159-184
56. Cizek GJ, Bunch MB, Koons H. Setting performance standards: contemporary methods. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2004;23:31-51
57. Linacre JM. Instantaneous measurement and diagnosis. Phys Med Rehabil. 1997; 11:315-324
58. Woodbury ML, Velozo CA. Potential for outcomes to influence practice and support clinical competency. OT Practice. 2005;10:7-8
59. Hart DL, Wright BD. Development of an index of physical functional health status in rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:655-665
60. Arnould C, Penta M, Renders A, Thonnard JL. ABILHAND-Kids: a measure of manual ability in children with cerebral palsy. Neurology. 2004;63:1045-1052
61. Kielhofner G, Dobria L, Forsyth K, Basu S. The construction of keyforms for obtaining instantaneous measures from the occupational performance history interview rating scales. Occup Ther J Res. 2005;25:1-10.