Computerized adaptive testing using the PROMIS physical function item bank reduces test burden with less ceiling effects compared with the short musculoskeletal function assessment in orthopaedic trauma patients

Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma

Volumn 28, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 439-444

  Hung, Man ^a   Stuart, Ami R ^a   Higgins, Thomas F ^a   Saltzman, Charles L ^a   Kubiak, Erik N ^a  

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

Author keywords

Computerized adaptive testing; Orthopaedic trauma; PF; PROMIS; sMFA

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARM INJURY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; COMPUTERIZED ADAPTIVE TESTING; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LEG INJURY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASUREMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM PHYSICAL FUNCTION COMPUTER ADAPTIVE TEST; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; RELIABILITY; SHORT MUSCULOSKELETAL FUNCTION ASSESSMENT; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY; ADOLESCENT; AGED; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONVALESCENCE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATOR; INJURIES; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUESTIONNAIRE; VERY ELDERLY; WOUNDS AND INJURIES; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL INFORMATICS APPLICATIONS; MIDDLE AGED; MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PSYCHOMETRICS; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; WOUNDS AND INJURIES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84929857769     PISSN: 08905339     EISSN: 15312291     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000059     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, et al. Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1980;23:137-145.
2. Swiontkowski M, Engleberg R, Martin D, et al. Short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire: validity, reliability, and responsiveness. J Bone Joint Surg. 1999;81:1245-1260.
3. Revicki DA, Cella DF. Health status assessment for the twenty-first century: item response theory, item banking and computer adaptive test-ing. Qual Life Res. 1997;6:595-600.
4. Gershon RC, Rothrock NE, Hanrahan RT, et al. The development of a clinical outcomes survey research application: Assessment Center. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:677-685.
5. Gershon RC, Rothrock NE, Hanrahan RT, et al. The use of PROMIS and assessment center to deliver patient-reported outcome measures in clinical research. J Appl Meas. 2012;11:304-314.
6. 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-S11.
7. DeWalt DA, Rothrock N, Yount S, et al; for the PROMIS Cooperative Group. Evaluation of item candidates-The PROMIS qualitative item review. Med Care. 2007;45:S12-S21.
8. 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). J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:17-33.
9. Hung M, Clegg DO, Greene T, et al. Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function item bank in orthopaedic patients. J Orthop Res. 2011;29:947-953.
10. Hung M, Carter M, Hayden C, et al. Psychometric assessment of the patient activation measure short form (PAM-13) in rural settings. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:521-529.
11. Hung M, Clegg DO, Greene T, et al. A lower extremity physical function computerized adaptive testing instrument for orthopaedic patients. Foot Ankle Int. 2012;33:326-335.
12. Gosling CM, Gabbe BJ, Williamson OD, et al. Validity of outcome measures used to assess one and six month outcomes in orthopaedic trauma patients. Injury. 2011;42:1443-1448.
13. Truman J, Robinson K, Evans AL, et al. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a pilot study of a new computer version of the self-report scale. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2003;12:9-14.
14. Ployhart RE, Weekley JA, Holtz BC, et al. Web-based and paper-and-pencil testing of applicants in a proctored setting: are personality, biodata and situ-ational judgment tests comparable? Pers Psychol. 2006;56:733-752.