A lower extremity physical function computerized adaptive testing instrument for orthopaedic patients

Foot and Ankle International

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 326-335

  Hung, Man ^a   Clegg, Daniel O ^a   Greene, Tom ^a   Weir, Charlene ^a   Saltzman, Charles L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

CAT; IRT; Lower extremity; Orthopaedics; Physical function; PROMIS

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ARTICLE; COMORBIDITY; COMPUTERIZED ADAPTIVE TESTING; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; ERROR; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEG; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT; ORTHOPEDIC EQUIPMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OUTPATIENT CARE; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; SIMULATION; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

ADULT; AGED; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOWER EXTREMITY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE);

EID: 84861464636     PISSN: 10711007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3113/FAI.2012.0326     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Cook, KF; O'Malley, KJ; Roddey, TS: Dynamic assessment of health outcomes: time to let the CAT out of the bag? Health Serv Res. 40:1694-1711, 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00446.x
2. Eastwood, EA: Functional status and its uses in rehabilitation medicine. Mt Sinai J Med. 66:179-87, 1999.
3. Fitzpatrick, R; Davey, C; Buxton, MJ; et al.: Evaluating patientbased outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 2:i-iv, 1-74, 1998.
4. Fliege, H; Becker, J; Walter, OB; et al.: Development of a computer-adaptive test for depression (D-CAT). Qual Life Res. 14:2277-2291, 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-6651-9
5. 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. 58:629-638, 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.12.004
6. Hung, M; Clegg, DO; Greene, T; Saltzman, CL: Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function item bank in orthopaedic patients. Journal of Orthopaedic Research. 29(6):947-953, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jor.21308
7. Jette, AM; Haley, SM; Ni, P; et al.: Creating a computer adaptive test version of the late-life function and disability instrument. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 63:1246-56, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gerona/63.11.1246
8. Kingsbury, GG; Houser, RL: Assessing the utility of item response models: Computerized adaptive testing. Educ Meas. 12:21-7, 1993. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/j.1745-3992.1993.tb00520.x
9. Kocalevent, RD; Rose, M; Becker, J; et al.: An evaluation of patient-reported outcomes found computerized adaptive testing was efficient in assessing stress perception. J Clin Epidemiol. 62:278-287, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.03.003
10. Marshall, S; Haywood, K; Fitzpatrick, R: Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review. J Eval Clin Pract. 12:559-568, 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00650.x
11. McHorney, CA: Ten recommendations for advancing patient-centered outcomes measurement for older persons. Ann Intern Med. 139:403-409, 2003.
12. Rose, M; Bjorner, JB; Becker J, et al.: Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supports the expected advantages of the Patient- Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 61:17-33, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.025 (Pubitemid 350236703)
13. Samejima, F: Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometric Monograph. 17:34, 1969.
14. Velozo, CA; Kielhofner G; Lai JS: The use of Rasch analysis to produce scale-free measurement of functional ability. Am J Occup Ther. 53(1):83-90, 1999.
15. Wainer, H: Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (2nd ed.), Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.
16. Weiss, DJ: Improving measurement quality and efficiency with adaptive theory. Appl Psychol Meas. 6:473-92, 1982. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 014662168200600408
17. Weiss, DJ: Computerized Adaptive Testing for Effective and Efficient Measurement in Counseling and Education. Meas Eval Counsel Dev. 37:70-84, 2004.
18. Zumbo, BD: Three Generations of DIF Analyses: Considering Where It Has Been, Where It Is Now, and Where It Is Going. Language Assessment Quarterly. 4(2):223-233, 2007.