Clinical interpretation of computerized adaptive test outcome measures in patients with foot/ankle impairments

Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy

Volumn 39, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 753-764

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

^a Focus on Therapeutic Outcomes Inc   (United States)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c REHABILITATION INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment of patient reported outcomes; Computerized adaptive testing; Lower extremity functional scale; Outpatient rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AMBULATORY CARE; ANKLE; ARTHROPATHY; ARTICLE; DISABILITY; FEMALE; FOOT DISEASE; HUMAN; MALE; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOTHERAPY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AMBULATORY CARE; ANKLE JOINT; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; FOOT DISEASES; HUMANS; JOINT DISEASES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NUMERICAL ANALYSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; PHYSICAL THERAPY MODALITIES; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 73349084981     PISSN: 01906011     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2009.3122     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Alcock GK, Stratfod PW. Validation of the lower extremity functional scale on athletic subjects with ankle sprains. Physiother Can. 2002;54:233-240.
2. American Physical Therapy Association. Guide to Physical Therapist Practice. Second Edition. Phys Ther. 2001;81:9-746.
3. Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:561- 573.
4. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:1204-1217.
5. Beninato M, Gill-Body KM, Salles S, Stark PC, Black-Schaffer RM, Stein J. Determination of the minimal clinically important difference in the FIM instrument in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:32-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2005.08.130
6. Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Lott SA, Riddle DL. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. Phys Ther. 1999;79:371-383.
7. Deutscher D, Hart DL, Dickstein R, Horn SD, Gut-virtz M. Implementing an integrated electronic outcomes and electronic health record process to create a foundation for clinical practice improvement. Phys Ther. 2008;88:270-285. http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20060280
8. Deutscher D, Horn SD, Dickstein R, et al. Associations between treatment processes, patient characteristics, and outcomes in outpatient physical therapy practice. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:1349-1363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. apmr.2009.02.005
9. 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.
10. Deyo RA, Patrick DL. The significance of treatment effects: the clinical perspective. Med Care. 1995;33:AS286-291.
11. 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.
12. Gershon RC. Computer adaptive testing. JAppl Meas. 2005;6:109-127.
13. Goldsmith CH, Boers M, Bombardier C, Tugwell P. Criteria for clinically important changes in outcomes: development, scoring and evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis patient and trial profiles. OMERACT Committee. J Rheumatol. 1993;20:561-565.
14. Haley SM, Ni P, Jette AM, et al. Replenishing a computerized adaptive test of patient- reported daily activity functioning. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:461-471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9463-5
15. Haley SM, Siebens H, Coster WJ, et al. Computerized adaptive testing for follow-up after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation: I. Activity outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:1033-1042. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2006. 04.020
16. Hart DL, Connolly JB. Pay-for-performance for physical therapy and occupational therapy: medicare part B services. Focus on Therapeutic Outcomes, Inc Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/TherapyServices/downloads/P4PFinal- Report06-01-06.pdfDate. Accessed, 2006.
17. Hart DL, Cook KF, Mioduski JE, Teal CR, Crane PK. Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with shoulder impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:290-298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.08.006
18. 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;58:629-638. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.12.004
19. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.10.017
20. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/s11136-008-9381-y
21. Hart DL, Wang YC, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE. A computerized adaptive test for patients with hip impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:2129-2139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. apmr.2008.04.026
22. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jclinepi.2008.01.005
23. Hays RD, Brodsky M, Johnston MF, Spritzer KL, Hui KK. Evaluating the statistical significance of health-related quality-of-life change in individual patients. Eval Health Prof. 2005;28:160-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0163278705275339
24. Hsieh YW, Wang CH, Wu SC, Chen PC, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the Barthel Index in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21:233-238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1545968306294729
25. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.
26. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407-415.
27. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20060121
28. Jette AM, Tao W, Norweg A, Haley S. Interpreting rehabilitation outcome measurements. J Rehabil Med. 2007;39:585-590. http://dx.doi.org/10.2340/ 16501977-0119
29. Johnson DA. Pay for performance: ACG guide for physicians. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:2119- 2122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007. 01519.x
30. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27:S178-189.
31. Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Manniche C, Kor-sholm L, Grunnet-Nilsson N. Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-7-82
32. Liang MH. Longitudinal construct validity: establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med Care. 2000;38:II84-90.
33. Linacre JM. Category, step and threshold: definitions & disordering. Rasch Measure Trans. 2001;15:794.
34. Linacre JM. Estimating measures with known polytomous item difficulties. Rasch Measure Trans. 1998;12:638.
35. Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder C. Outcomes Assessment in Cancer: Measures, Methods, and Applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2005.Lord FM. Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1980.
36. Lord FM. Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1980.
37. McHorney CA, Haley SM, Ware JE, Jr. 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.
38. Millsap RE, Everson HT. Methodology review: statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Appl Psych Meas. 1993;17:297-334.
39. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41:582-592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.MLR. 0000062554.74615.4C
40. Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33:90-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e3a10
41. Perry J, Garrett M, Gronley JK, Mulroy SJ. Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke. 1995;26:982-989.
42. Resnik L, Hart DL. Using clinical outcomes to identify expert physical therapists. Phys Ther. 2003;83:990-1002.
43. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ ptj.20070327
44. Riddle DL, Stratford PW, Binkley JM. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 2. Phys Ther. 1998;78:1197-1207.
45. Schmitt J, Di Fabio RP. The validity of prospective and retrospective global change criterion measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:2270-2276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2005.07.290
46. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclinepi.2004.02.007
47. Spertus JA. Evolving applications for patient- centered health status measures. Circulation. 2008;118:2103-2110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/ CIRCULATIONAHA.107.747568
48. Stineman MG, Ross RN, Fiedler R, Granger CV, Maislin G. Functional independence staging: conceptual foundation, face validity, and empirical derivation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:29-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/ apmr.2003.50061
49. Stineman MG, Ross RN, Fiedler R, Granger CV, Maislin G. Staging functional independence validity and applications. Arch Phys Med Reha- bil. 2003;84:38-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2003.50060
50. Stratfod PW, Hart DL, Binkley JM, Kennedy DM, Alcock GK, Hanna SE. Interpreting lower extremity functional status scores. Physiother Can.2005;57:154-162.
51. Stratford PW. Getting more from the literature: estimating the standard error of measurement from reliability studies. Physiother Can. 2004;56:27-30.
52. Stratford PW, Binkley FM, Riddle DL. Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther. 1996;76:1109-1123.
53. Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, Finch E, Gill C, Moreland J. Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire. Phys Ther. 1996;76:359-365; discussion 366-358. (Pubitemid 126501431)
54. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL, Guyatt GH. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther. 1998;78:1186-1196.
55. 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, 110.
56. Stratford PW, Riddle DL. Assessing sensitivity to change: choosing the appropriate change coefficient. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-3-23
57. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-8-163
58. Swinkels IC, van den Ende CH, de Bakker D, et al. Clinical databases in physical therapy. Phys iother Theory Pract. 2007;23:153-167.
59. Tao W, Haley SM, Coster WJ, Ni P, Jette AM. An exploratory analysis of functional staging using an item response theory approach. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:1046-1053. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.036
60. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product develpoment to support labeling claims. U. S. FDA. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/06d-0044- gdl0001.pdfDate. Accessed, 2006.
61. van der Linden WJ, Glas CAW. Computerized Adaptive Testing Theory and Practice. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2000.
62. Wang YC, Hart DL, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE. Clinical Interpretation of a Lower-Extremity Functional Scale-Derived Computerized Adaptive Test. Phys Ther. 2009;http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20080359
63. Wang YC, Hart DL, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE. Clinical interpretation of computerized adaptive test-generated outcome measures in patients with knee impairments. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:1340-1348. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.apmr.2009.02.008
64. Ware JE, Jr., Bjorner JB, Kosinski M. Response to Hays et al and McHorney and Cohen: 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:II-73-II-82.
65. Werneke MW, Hart DL, Resnik L, Stratford PW, Reyes A. Centralization: prevalence and effect on treatment outcomes using a standardized operational definition and measurement method. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38:116-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2008.2596
66. World Health Organization (WHO). International Classification of. Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (WHO); 2001.