Advertisement
Journal Home
Search for

Volume 59, Issue 3, Pages 290-298 (March 2006)


View previous. 12 of 17 View next.

Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with shoulder impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function

Dennis L. HartaCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Karon F. Cookbc, Jerome E. Mioduskid, Cayla R. Tealef, Paul K. Craneg

Accepted 8 August 2005. published online 28 December 2005.

Abstract 

Background and Objective

To test unidimensionality and local independence of a set of shoulder functional status (SFS) items, develop a computerized adaptive test (CAT) of the items using a rating scale item response theory model (RSM), and compare discriminant validity of measures generated using all items (θIRT) and measures generated using the simulated CAT (θCAT).

Study Design and Setting

We performed a secondary analysis of data collected prospectively during rehabilitation of 400 patients with shoulder impairments who completed 60 SFS items.

Results

Factor analytic techniques supported that the 42 SFS items formed a unidimensional scale and were locally independent. Except for five items, which were deleted, the RSM fit the data well. The remaining 37 SFS items were used to generate the CAT. On average, 6 items were needed to estimate precise measures of function using the SFS CAT, compared with all 37 SFS items. The θIRT and θCAT measures were highly correlated (r = .96) and resulted in similar classifications of patients.

Conclusion

The simulated SFS CAT was efficient and produced precise, clinically relevant measures of functional status with good discriminating ability.

a Focus On Therapeutic Outcomes, Inc., 551 Yopps Cove Road, White Stone, VA 22578, USA

b Veteran's Affairs Measurement Excellence, Training Research & Information Center (METRIC), U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Houston, TX, USA

c Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

d Focus On Therapeutic Outcomes, Inc., Knoxville, TN, USA

e Houston Center for Quality of Care & Utilization Studies, Baylor College of Medicine and Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA

f Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA

g Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author.

PII: S0895-4356(05)00298-2

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.08.006


View previous. 12 of 17 View next.

Advertisement