Clinical interpretation of outcome measures generated from a lumbar computerized adaptive test

Physical Therapy

Volumn 90, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1323-1335

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

^b Focus on Therapeutic Outcomes Inc   (United States)

^c CentraState Medical Center   (United States)

^d MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; CONVALESCENCE; DISABILITY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOTHERAPY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SPINE DISEASE; UNITED STATES;

CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PAIN MEASUREMENT; PHYSICAL THERAPY MODALITIES; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; SPINAL DISEASES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77956940508     PISSN: 00319023     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20090371     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Scoggins JF, Patrick DL. The use of patient-reported outcomes instruments in registered clinical trials: evidence from Clinical-Trials.gov. Contemp Clin Trials. 2009;30:289-292.
2. Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder C. Outcomes Assessment in Cancer: Measures, Methods, and Applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
3. US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, and FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures, use in medical product development to support labeling claims, draft guidance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2006;4:79-98.
4. Sigl T, Cieza A, Brockow T, et al. Content comparison of low back pain-specific measures based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Clin J Pain. 2006;22:147-153.
5. Hart DL, Connolly JB. Pay-for-Performance for Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy: Medicare Part B Services Final Report. Grant #18-P-93066/9-01. US Dept of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/TherapyServices/ downloads/P4PFinalReport06-01-06.pdf. 2006. Accessed June 11, 2009.
6. Guide to Physical Therapist Practice. 2nd ed. Phys Ther. 2001;81:9-746.
7. Bombardier C. Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: introduction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3097-3099.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Hart DL, Wang YC, Cook KF, Mioduski JE. Computerized adaptive test for patients with shoulder impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. Phys Ther. 2010;90:928-938.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Wang YC, Hart DL, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE. Clinical interpretation of a lower extremity functional scale-derived computerized adaptive test. Phys Ther. 2009;89:957-968.
16. 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.
17. Wang YC, Hart DL, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE. Clinical interpretation of computerized adaptive test outcome measures in patients with foot/ankle impairments. J Orthop Sport Phys. 2009;39:753-764.
18. Hart DL, Werneke MW, Wang YC, et al. Computerized adaptive test for patients with lumbar spine impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). In press.
19. Swinkels IC, van den Ende CH, de Bakker D, et al. Clinical databases in physical therapy. Physiother Theory Pract. 2007;23:153-167.
20. Lord FM. Applications of Item Response to Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates; 1980.
21. 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. In press.
22. Stratford PW, Binkley JM; North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. A comparison study of the Back Pain Functional Scale and Roland-Morris Questionnaire. J Rheumatol. 2000;27:1928-1936.
23. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL. Development and initial validation of the Back Pain Functional Scale. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:2095-2102.
24. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), I: conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473-483.
25. Hart DL. Assessment of unidimensionality of physical functioning in patients receiving therapy in acute, orthopedic outpatient centers. J Outcome Meas. 2000;4:413-430.
26. Hart DL, Wright BD. Development of an index of physical functional health status in rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:655-665. (Pubitemid 34498884)
27. Deutscher D, Hart DL, Dickstein R, 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.
28. Camili G, Shepard LA. Methods for Identifying Biased Test Items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994.
29. Jette AM, Tao W, Norweg A, Haley S. Interpreting rehabilitation outcome measurements. J Rehabil Med. 2007;39:585-590.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. Stratford PW, Hart DL, Binkley JM, et al. Interpreting lower extremity functional status scores. Physiother Can. 2005;57:154-162.
33. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:1204-1217.
34. Stratford PW, Riddle DL. Assessing sensitivity to change: choosing the appropriate change coefficient. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:23.
35. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:395-407.
36. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407-415.
37. Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis. 1986;59:897-906.
38. Cizek GJ, Bunch MB, Koons H. Setting performance standards: contemporary methods. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2004;23:31-51.
39. Linacre JM. Instantaneous measurement and diagnosis. Phys Med Rehab. 1997;11:315-324.
40. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.
41. Linacre JM. WINSTEPS Rasch Measurement Computer Program. Chicago, IL: Winsteps.com; 2009.
42. Andrich DA. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:561-573.
43. Linacre JM. Category, step and threshold: definitions and disordering. Rasch Measurement Transactions. 2001;15:794.
44. Pahl MA, Brislin B, Boden S, et al. The impact of four common lumbar spine diagnoses upon overall health status. Spine J. 2006;6:125-130. (Pubitemid 43316426)
45. Fanciullo GJ, Hanscom B, Weinstein JN, et al. Cluster analysis classification of SF-36 profiles for patients with spinal pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:2276-2282.
46. 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.
47. Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford PW, 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.
48. 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.
49. Schmitt J, Di Fabio RP. The validity of prospective and retrospective global change criterion measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:2270-2276. (Pubitemid 41774600)