Computerized adaptive test for patients with lumbar spine impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function

Spine

Volumn 35, Issue 24, 2010, Pages 2157-2164

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

^a Focus on Therapeutic Outcomes Inc   (United States)

^b CentraState Medical Center   (United States)

^c REHABILITATION INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^d MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

back pain functional scale; computerized adaptive testing; item response theory; rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COMPUTERIZED ADAPTIVE TESTING; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HUMAN; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; INTERVERTEBRAL DISKECTOMY; ISCHIALGIA; LOW BACK PAIN; LUMBAR SPINE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OSTEOARTHRITIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REHABILITATION CARE; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; SACROILIAC JOINT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SOFT TISSUE INJURY; SPINE DISEASE; SPINE FUSION; SPONDYLOSIS; SPRAIN; STRAIN DIFFERENCE; SYNOVIAL BURSA; SYNOVIUM; TENDON; TREATMENT RESPONSE; VERTEBRAL CANAL STENOSIS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AMBULATORY CARE FACILITIES; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SPINAL DISEASES; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 78649442986     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181cbc17f     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Wainer H, ed. Computerized Adaptive Testing. A Primer. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000.
2. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991.
3. Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 2000;38:II28-42.
4. Sands WA, Waters BK, McBride JR, eds. Computerized Adaptive Testing. From Inquiry to Operation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1997.
5. Lord FM, Novick MR. Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1968.
6. Lord F. Some test theory for tailored testing. In: Holtzman W, ed. Computer-Assisted Instruction, Testing, and Guidance. New York, NY: Harper and Row; 1970:139-83.
7. 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:II73-82.
8. Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, et al. Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact. Qual Life Res 2003;12:935-52.
9. Hart DL, Wang YC, Stratford PW, et al. Computerized adaptive test for patients with knee impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:1113-24.
10. Hart DL, Wang YC, Stratford PW, et al. Computerized adaptive test for patients with foot or ankle impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. Qual Life Res 2008;17:1081-91.
11. Hart DL, Wang YC, Stratford PW, et al. A computerized adaptive test for patients with hip impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89:2129-39.
12. 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;88:270-85.
13. Hart DL, Connolly JB. Pay-for-performance for physical therapy and occupational therapy: Medicare Part B Services. Maryland, MD: Health & Human Services/Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; 2006. Grant 18-P-93066/9-01.
14. Haley SM, Raczek AE, Coster WJ, et al. Assessing mobility in children using a computer adaptive testing version of the pediatric evaluation of disability inventory. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:932-9.
15. Ware JE, Gandek B, Sinclair SJ, et al. Item response theory in computer adaptive testing: implications for outcomes measurement in rehabilitation. Rehabil Psychol 2005;50:71-8.
16. Haley SM, Coster WJ, Andres PL, et al. Score comparability of short forms and computerized adaptive testing: simulation study with the activity measure for post-acute care. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:661-6.
17. Haley SM, Coster WJ, Andres PL, et al. Activity outcome measurement for postacute care. Med Care 2004;42:I49-61.
18. 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;59:290-8.
19. 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; 58:629-38.
20. Hart DL, Mioduski JE, Werneke MW, et al. Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with lumbar spine impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:947-56.
21. Jette AM, Haley SM, Tao W, et al. Prospective evaluation of the AM-PAC-CAT in outpatient rehabilitation settings. Phys Ther 2007;87:385-98.
22. Elhan AH, Oztuna D, Sutlay S, et al. An initial application of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) for measuring disability in patients with low back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008;9:166.
23. Cook KF, Choi SW, Crane PK, et al. Letting the CAT out of the bag: comparing computer adaptive tests and an 11-item short form of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Spine 2008;33:1378-83.
24. Kopec JA, Badii M, McKenna M, et al. Computerized adaptive testing in back pain: validation of the CAT-5D-QOL. Spine 2008;33:1384-90.
25. American Physical Therapy Association. Guide to physical therapist practice. Phys Ther 2001;81:1-768.
26. Resnik L, Hart DL. Using clinical outcomes to identify expert physical therapists. Phys Ther 2003;83:990-1002.
27. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 2007 Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI). Physician quality measures. Baltimore, MD: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; 2007.
28. 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.
29. Swinkels ICS, van den Ende CHM, de Bakker D, et al. Clinical databases in physical therapy. Physiother Theory Pract 2007;23:153-67.
30. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL. Development and initial validation of the back pain functional scale. Spine 2000;25:2095-102.
31. 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: 473-83.
32. Hart DL, Wright BD. Development of an index of physical functional health status in rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:655-65.
33. Hart DL. Assessment of unidimensionality of physical functioning in patients receiving therapy in acute, orthopedic outpatient centers. J Outcome Meas 2000;4:413-30.
34. World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.
35. Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 1978;43:561-73.
36. Thissen D, Mislevy RJ. Testing algorithms. In: Wainer H, ed. Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000:101-34.
37. Hart DL, Mioduski JE. CAT Development and Testing Software User's Guide. Knoxville, TN: FOTO, Inc; 2006.
38. Lord FM. Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1980.
39. Linacre JM. Estimating measures with known polytomous item difficulties. Rasch Meas Trans 1998;12:638.
40. Groll DL, To T, Bombardier C, et al. The development of a comorbidity index with physical functionas the outcome. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:595-602.
41. Vickers AJ, Altman DG. Statistics notes: analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow up measurements. BMJ 2001;323:1123-4.
42. Bland JM, Altman DG. Regression towards the mean. BMJ 1994;308:1499.
43. Resnik L, Feng Z, Hart DL. State regulation and the delivery of physical therapy services. Health Serv Res 2006;41:1296-316.
44. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:395-407.
45. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:861-73.
46. 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;21:233-8.
47. 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;57:1008-18.
48. 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;28:160-71.
49. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, et al. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:1204-17.
50. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurementof health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10: 407-15.
51. Goldsmith CH, Boers M, Bombardier C, et al; OMERACT Committee. Criteria for clinically important changes in outcomes: development, scoring and evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis patient and trial profiles. J Rheumatol 1993;20:561-5.
52. Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J,Manniche C, et al. Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2006;7:82.
53. 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 2008;33:90-4.
54. Riddle DL, Stratford PW, Binkley JM. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 2. Phys Ther 1998;78:1197-207.
55. Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, et al. Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire. Phys Ther 1996;76: 359-65; discussion 66-8.
56. Ader DN. Developing the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care 2007;45:S1-2.
57. Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care 2007;45:S3-11.
58. Waddell G, Newton M, Henderson I, et al. A Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain 1993;52:157-68.
59. Haggman S, Maher CG, Refshauge KM. Screening for symptoms of depression by physical therapists managing low back pain. Phys Ther 2004;84: 1157-66.
60. Werneke MW, Hart DL, George SZ, et al. Clinical outcomes for patients classified by fear-avoidance beliefs and centralization phenomenon. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009;90;768-77.
61. McCarthy CJ, Arnall FA, Strimpakos N. The biopsychosocial classification of non-specific low back pain: a systematic review. Phys Ther Rev 2004;9: 17-30.
62. Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989;27:S217-32.
63. Davidson M, Keating JL. A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther 2002;82:8-24.
64. Grotle M, Brox JI, Vollestad NK. Concurrent comparison of responsiveness in pain and functional status measurements used for patients with low back pain. Spine 2004;29:E492-501.
65. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, et al. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980;66:271-3.
66. Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine 1983;8:141-4.
67. Institute of Medicine. Rewarding Provider Performance: Aligning Incentives in Medicare. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006.
68. Porter ME, Teisberg EO. Redefining Health Care. Creating Value-Based Competition on Results. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press; 2006.
69. Werneke MW, Hart DL, Resnik L, et al. Centralization: prevalence and effect on treatment outcomes using a standardized operational definition and measurement method. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2008;38:116-25.