On "motor control exercise for chronic low back pain..." Costa LOP, Maher CG, Latimer J, et al. Phys Ther. 2009;89:1275-1286 [3]

Physical Therapy

Volumn 90, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 308-310

  Hart, Dennis L ^a   Werneke, Mark W ^b  

^a Focus on Therapeutic Outcomes Inc   (United States)

^b Spine Center   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHRONIC DISEASE; CONVALESCENCE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; KINESIOTHERAPY; LOW BACK PAIN; METHODOLOGY; NOTE; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CHRONIC DISEASE; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EXERCISE THERAPY; HUMANS; LOW BACK PAIN; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PSYCHOMETRICS; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77649223740     PISSN: 00319023     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.2010.90.2.308     Document Type: Letter

References (23)

1. Costa LOP, Maher CG, Latimer J, et al. Motor control exercise for chronic low back pain: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2009;89:1275-1286.
2. Fritz JM. Invited commentary on "Motor control exercise for chronic low back pain: a randomized placebo-controlled trial." Phys Ther. 2009;89:1287-1289.
3. Stratford PW, Gill C, Westaway MD, Binkley JM. Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure. Physiother Can. 1995;47:258-263.
4. Westaway MD, Stratford PW, Binkley JM. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale: validation of its use in persons with neck dysfunction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;27:331-338.
5. Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of low-back pain, part II: development of guidelines for trials of treatment in primary care. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983;8:145-150.
6. MacKenzie CR, Charlson ME, DiGioia D, Kelley K. A patient-specific measure of change in maximal function. Arch Intern Med. 1986;146:1325-1329.
7. Tugwell P, Bombardier C, Buchanan WW, et al. The MACTAR Patient Preference Disability Questionnaire: an individualized functional priority approach for assessing improvement in physical disability in clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1987;14:446-451.
8. Lord FM, Novick MR. Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1968.
9. Dorans N. Scaling and equating. In: Wainer H, ed. Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000:135-158.
10. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991.
11. Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE Jr. Using item response theory to calibrate the Headache Impact Test (HIT) to the metric of traditional headache scales. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:981-1002.
12. Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE Jr. Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: an application of item response theory to the Headache Impact Test (HIT). Qual Life Res. 2003;12:913-933.
13. Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE Jr. The feasibility of applying item response theory to measures of migraine impact: a re-analysis of three clinical studies. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:887-902.
14. Wright BD, Linacre JM. Observations are always ordinal; measurements, however, must be interval. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1989;70:857-860.
15. Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating Scale Analyses. Chicago, IL: MESA Press; 1982.
16. Hart DL, Werneke MW. Comment on "Responsiveness of pain, disability, and physical impairment outcomes in patients with low back pain." Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29:2475-2476.
17. 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.
18. Lord FM. Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1980.
19. Rose M, Bjorner JB, Becker T, et al. Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:17-33.
20. 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.
21. Crane PK, Gibbons LE, Jolley L, van Belle G. Differential item functioning analysis with ordinal logistic regression techniques: DIFdetect and difwithpar. Med Care. 2006;44:S115-S123.
22. Millsap RE, Everson HT. Methodology review: statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Appl Psychol Meas. 1993;17:287-334.
23. Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care. 2000;38:II28-II42.