An application of computerised adaptive testing for measuring health status in patients with knee osteoarthritis

Disability and Rehabilitation

Volumn 32, Issue 23, 2010, Pages 1928-1938

  Öztuna, Derya ^a   Elhan, Atilla Halil ^a   Küçkdeveci, Ayşe Adile ^a   Kutlay, Şehim ^a   Tennant, Alan ^b  

^a ANKARA UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

computerised adaptive testing; knee; Osteoarthritis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DISABILITY; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; STANDARD; TURKEY (REPUBLIC);

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; SOFTWARE; TURKEY;

EID: 77957778824     PISSN: 09638288     EISSN: 14645165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/09638281003777572     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Dillon CF, Rasch CK, Gu Q, Hirsch R. Prevalence of knee osteoarthritis in the United States: arthritis data from the third national health and nutrition examination survey 1991-94. J Rheum 2006;33:1-9.
2. Badley EM. Rheumatic diseases: the unnoticed elephant in the room (Editorial). J Rheum 2008;38:6-7.
3. Croft P. Osteoarthritis in primary care. BMJ 2006;333:867-868.
4. Ettinger WH, Davis MA, Neuhaus JM, Mallon KP. Long-term physical functioning in persons with knee osteoarthritis from NHANES. I. Effects of comorbid medical conditions. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:809-815.
5. March LM, Bachmeier CJ. Economics of osteoarthritis: a global perspective. Baillieres Clin Rheumatol 1997;11:817-834.
6. Stoke J, Desjardins S, Perruccio AV. Economic burden. In: Badley EM, DesMeules M, editors. Arthritis in Canada: an ongoing challenge. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2003. (Cat. no. H39-4/14-2003E).
7. Zhang W, Moskowitz RW, Nuki G, Abramson S, Altman RD, Arden N, Bierma-Zeinstra S, Brandt KD, Croft P, Doherty M, Dougados M, Hochberg M, Hunter DJ, Kwoh K, Lohmander LS, Tugwell P. OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis. II. OARSI evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines. Osteoarthr Cartilage 2008;16:137-162.
8. World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
9. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988;15:1833-1840.
10. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-483.
11. Engel GL. The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model. Am J Psychiatry 1980;137:535-544.
12. Gershon RC. Computer adaptive testing. J Appl Meas 2005;6: 109-127.
13. Cook KF, Teal CR, Bjorner JB, Cella D, Chang CH, Crane PK, Gibbons LE, Hays RD, McHorney CA, Ocepek-Welikson K, Raczek AE, Teresi JA, Reeve BB. IRT health outcomes data analysis project: an overview and summary. Qual Life Res 2007;16:121-132.
14. Fliege H, Becker J, Walter OB, Bjorner JB, Klapp BF. Development of computer-adaptive test for depression (D-CAT). Qual Life Res 2005;14:2277-2291.
15. 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.
16. 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.
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. Jette AM, Haley SM, Tao W, Ni P, Moed R, Meyers D, Zurek M. Prospective evaluation of the AM-PAC-CAT in outpatient rehabilitation settings. Phys Ther 2007;87:385-398.
19. Kocalevent RD, Rose M, Becker J, Walter OB, Fliege H, Bjorner JB, Kleiber D, Klapp BF. An evaluation of patient-reported outcomes found computerized adaptive testing was efficient in assessing stress perception. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:278-287.
20. Kopec JA, Badii M, McKenna M, Lima VD, Sayre EC, Dvorak M. Computerized adaptive testing in back pain: validation of the CAT-5D-QOL. Spine 2008;33:1384-1390.
21. Rose M, Bjorner JB, Becker J, Fries JF, Ware JE. 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.
22. Lord FM. Some test theory for tailored testing. In: Holtzman WH, editor. Computer assisted instruction, testing and guidance. New York, NY: Harper and Row; 1970. pp 139-183.
23. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Bayliss MS, Batenhorst A, Dahlöf CG, Tepper S, Dowson A. Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact. Qual Life Res 2003;12:935-952.
24. Altman R, Asch E, Bloch D, Bole G, Borenstein D, Brandt K, Christy W, Cooke TD, Greenwald R, Hochberg M, Howell D, Kaplan D, Koopman W, Longley III S, Mankin H, McShane DJ, Medsger Jr. T, Meenan R, Mikkelsen W, Moskowitz R, Murphy W, Rothschild B, Segal M, Sokoloff L, Wolfe F. Development of criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis. Classification of osteoarthritis of the knee. Diagnostic and therapeutic criteria committee of the American rheumatism association. Arthritis Rheum 1986;29:1039-1049.
25. Tüzün EH, Eker L, Aytar A, Daşkapan A, Bayramoǧlu M. Acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Turkish version of WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Osteoarthr Cartilage 2005;13:28-33.
26. Bruce B, Fries JF. The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire: a review of its history, issues, progress, and documentation. J Rheumatol 2003;30:167-178.
27. Küçükdeveci AA, Sahin H, Ataman S, Griffiths B, Tennant A. Issues in cross-cultural validity: example from the adaptation, reliability, and validity testing of a Turkish version of the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum 2004;51:14-19.
28. WHO. World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II. http://www.who.int/icidh/whodas/.
29. Ulug B, Ertugrul A, Gogus A, Kabakci E. Yetiyitimi degerlen-dirme cizelgesinin (WHODAS II) sizofreni hastalarinda gecer-lilik ve gü venilirligi. Turk Psikiyatr Derg 2001;12:121-130.
30. European Group for Quality of Life Assessment and Health Measurement. European Guide for Nottingham Health Profile. Brookwood-Surrey: Brookwood Medical Publications; 1993.
31. Küçükdeveci A, McKenna SP, Kutlay S, Gürsel Y, Whalley D, Arasil T. The development and psychometric assessment of the Turkish version of the Nottingham Health Profile. Int J Rehabil Res 2000;23:31-38.
32. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user's guide. 5th ed. Los Angeles: CA; 1998-2007. http://www.statmodel.com/down-load/usersguide/ MplusUsersGuidev5.pdf.
33. Pai ALH, Mullins LL, Drotar D, Burant C, Wagner J, Chaney JM. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the child uncertainty in illness scale among children with chronic illness. J Pediatr Psychol 2007;32:288-296.
34. Andrich D. Rasch models for measurement. London: SAGE Publications; 1988.
35. Masters G. A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika 1982;47:149-174.
36. Andrich D, Lyne A, Sheridan B, Luo G. RUMM2020. Rasch Unidimensional Measurement Models Software. Perth: RUMM Laboratory; 2003.
37. Elhan AH, Oztuna D, Kutlay S, Kucukdeveci AA, Tennant A. An initial application of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) for measuring disability in patients with low back pain. BMC Musculoskel Dis 2008;9:166.
38. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16:297-334.
39. Fisher WP. Reliability statistics. Rasch Measure Trans 1992;6:238.
40. Öztuna D, Öztuna E, Elhan AH. SmartCAT. Ankara: Turkey; 2008. http://www.smartcatworld.com/ (Web site under construction).
41. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlation: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psycho Bull 1979;86:420-428.
42. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-310.
43. Marais I, Andrich D. RUMMss. Rasch unidimensional measurement models simulation studies software. Perth: The University of Western Australia; 2007.
44. Linacre JM. Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Measure Trans 1994;7:28.
45. Bland JM, Altman DG. Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. BMJ 1995;310:170.
46. Mulcahey MJ, Haley SM, Duffy T, Pengsheng N, Betz RR. Measuring physical functioning in children with spinal impairments with computerized adaptive testing. J Pediatr Orthop 2008;28:330-335.
47. Jette AM, McDonough CM, Haley SM, Ni P, Olarsch S, Latham N, Hambleton RK, Felson D, Kim YJ, Hunter D. A computer-adaptive disability instrument for lower extremity osteoarthritis research demonstrated promising breadth, precision, and reliability. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62:807-815.
48. Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Ware JE Jr, Sullivan E, Straus WL. An evaluation of a patient-reported outcomes found computerized adaptive testing was efficient in assessing osteoarthritis impact. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:715-723.
49. Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE. 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.
50. Haley SM, Gandek B, Siebens H, Black-Schaffer RM, Sinclair SJ, Tao W, Coster WJ, Ni P, Jette AM. Computerized adaptive testing for follow-up after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. II. Participation outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89:275-283.
51. Dijkers MP. A computer adaptive testing simulation applied to the FIM instrument motor component. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84:384-393.
52. Ramachandran S, Lundy JJ, Coons SJ. Testing the measurement equivalence of paper and touch-screen versions of the EQ-5D visual analog scale (EQ VAS). Qual Life Res 2008; 17:1117-1120.