Development of the computer-adaptive version of the late-life function and disability instrument

Journals of Gerontology - Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences

Volumn 67, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 1427-1438

  McDonough, Christine M ^a,b   Tian, Feng ^a   Ni, Pengsheng ^a   Kopits, Ilona M ^c   Moed, Richard ^d   Pardasaney, Poonam K ^a,e   Jette, Alan M ^a  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b DARTMOUTH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH POLICY AND CLINICAL PRACTICE   (United States)

^c BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d CRECare   (United States)

^e BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Activity; Computer adaptive testing; Disability; Function; Participation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DISABILITY; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATOR; HUMAN; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY;

DISABILITY EVALUATION; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84869400274     PISSN: 10795006     EISSN: 1758535X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/gerona/gls108     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Institute of Medicine. The Future of Disability in America. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2007.
2. Nagi SZ. An epidemiology of disability among adults in the United States. Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1976;54:439-67.
3. World Health Organization. International Classifi cation of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 2001.
4. Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L. Assessing the building blocks of function: utilizing measures of functional limitation. Am J Prev Med. 2003; 25(3 suppl 2):112-121. (Pubitemid 41116504)
5. Haywood KL, Garratt AM, Fitzgerald R. Older people specifi c health status and quality of life: a structured review of self-assessed instruments. J Eval Clin Pract. 2005;11(4):315-327. (Pubitemid 41059313)
6. Ware JE Jr. Conceptualization and measurement of health-related quality of life: comments on an evolving field. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 84(suppl 2):S43-S51. (Pubitemid 36417642)
7. Jette AM, Haley SM. Longitudinal outcome monitoring across post-acute care (PAC) settings. Uniform Patient Assessment for Post-acute Care Final Report. Aurora, CO: Division of Health Care Policy and Research, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center; 2006:100-120.
8. Jette AM, Haley SM. Contemporary measurement techniques for rehabilitation outcomes assessment. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37:339-345. (Pubitemid 41823728)
9. Haley SM, Coster WJ, Andres PL, Kosinski M, Ni P. Score comparability of short forms and computerized adaptive testing: Simulation study with the activity measure for post-acute care. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Apr;85(4):661-666. (Pubitemid 38881057)
10. Rubenach S, Shadbolt B, McCallum J. Assessing health-related quality of life following myocardial infarction: Is the SF-12 useful? J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:306-309. (Pubitemid 34195527)
11. 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 May;45(5 suppl 1):S3-S11.
12. Hambleton RK. Applications of Item Response Theory to improve health outcomes assessment: developing item banks, linking Instruments, and computer-adaptive testing. In: Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder C, eds. Outcomes Assessment in Cancer. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
13. Hays R, Morales L, Reise S. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care. 2000;38(II):28-42.
14. Haley SM, Siebens H, Coster WJ, et al. Computerized adaptive testing for follow-up after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation: I. Activity outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006 Aug;87(8):1033-1042. (Pubitemid 44107845)
15. Haley SM, Jette AM, Coster WJ, et al. Late Life Function and Disability Instrument: II. Development and evaluation of the function component. J Gerontol A Med Sci. [Evaluation Studies Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.]. 2002 Apr;57(4):M217-M222. (Pubitemid 34263298)
16. Jette AM, Haley SM, Coster WJ, et al. Late life function and disability instrument: I. Development and evaluation of the disability component. J Gerontol A Med Sci. [Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S. Validation Studies]. 2002 Apr;57(4):M209-M216. (Pubitemid 34263297)
17. Sayers SP, Jette AM, Haley SM, Heeren TC, Guralnik JM, Fielding RA. Validation of the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument. J Am Geriatr Soc. [Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S. Validation Studies]. 2004 Sep;52(9):1554-1559. (Pubitemid 39209607)
18. Jette AM, Haley SM, Ni P, Olarsch S, Moed R. Creating a computer adaptive test version of the late-life function and disability instrument. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural]. 2008 Nov;63(11):1246-1256. (Pubitemid 352772047)
19. Jette AM. Toward a common language of disablement. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2009 Nov;64(11):1165-1168.
20. Kazis LE, Miller DR, Clark JA, et al. Improving the response choices on the Veterans SF-36 health survey role functioning scales: results from the Veterans Health Study. J Ambul Care Manage. 2004 Jul-Sep; 27(3):263-280. (Pubitemid 38780397)
21. Kazis LE, Miller DR, Skinner KM, et al. Patient-reported measures of health: The Veterans Health Study. J Ambul Care Manage. 2004 Jan-Mar; 27(1):70-83. (Pubitemid 38031973)
22. 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(6):473-483.
23. Muthen B, Muthen L. Mplus Statistical Analysis with Latent Variables User's Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 2007.
24. Kass R, Wasserman L. A reference Bayesian test for nested hypotheses and its relationship to the Schwartz criterion. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995; 90:928-934.
25. Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fi t indexes for maximum-likelihood confirmatory factor-analysis. Psychometrika. 1984;49:155-173.
26. Bentler PM. On the fit of models to covariance and methodology. Psychol Bull. 1992;112:400-404.
27. Marsh HW, Balla JR, McDonald RP. Goodness of fi t indexes in confi r-matory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. Psychol Bull. 1988:103-391-410.
28. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS, eds. Testing Structural Equation Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1993:136-162.
29. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fi t indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equat Model. 1999;6(1):1-55.
30. Reeve BB, Hays RD, Bjorner JB. Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care. 2007 May;45(5 suppl 1):S22-S31.
31. Mislevy RJ. Bayes modal estimation in item response models. Psychometrika. 1986;51:177-195.
32. Segall DO. General ability measurement: an application of multidimensional item response theory. Psychometrika. 2001;66:79-97. (Pubitemid 33404756)
33. Drasgow F, Levine M, Williams E. Appropriateness measurement with polytomous item response models and standardized indices. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. 1985;38:67-86.
34. Ackerman T, Hombo C, Neustel S, eds. Evaluating indices used to assess the goodness-of-fi t of the compensatory multidimensional item response theory model. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education; 2002; New Orleans, LA.
35. Thissen D, ed. The MEDPRO project: An SBIR project for a comprehensive IRT and CAT software system - IRT software. Proceedings of the 2009 GMAC Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing; Minneapolis, MN, 2009.
36. Crane P, Gibbons L, Ocepek-Welikson K, et al. A comparison of three sets of criteria for determining the presence of differential item functioning using ordinal logistic regression. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(0):69-84. (Pubitemid 47036918)
37. Jodoin MG, Gierl MJ. Evaluating Type I error and power rates using an effect size measure with the Logistic Regression Procedure for DIF detection. Appl Measure Educat. 2001;14(4):329-349. (Pubitemid 33610868)
38. Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1981.
39. McDowell I. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
40. Andresen EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000 Dec;81(12 suppl 2):S15-S20.
41. Hammel J, Magasi S, Heinemann A, Whiteneck G, Bogner J, Rodriguez E. What does participation mean? An insider perspective from people with disabilities. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(19):1445-1460.