Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 59, Issue 9 , Pages 947-956 , September 2006

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

  • Dennis L. Hart

      Affiliations

    • Focus On Therapeutic Outcomes, Inc., 551 Yopps Cove Road, White Stone, VA 22578, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: 804-436-9727.
    • ,
  • Jerome E. Mioduski

      Affiliations

    • Focus On Therapeutic Outcomes, Inc., Knoxville, TN, USA
    • ,
  • Mark W. Werneke

      Affiliations

    • Spine Rehabilitation at CentraState Medical Center, Freehold, NJ, USA
    • ,
  • Paul W. Stratford

      Affiliations

    • School of Rehabilitation Science and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada

,Accepted 16 October 2005.

References 

  1. 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;58:629–638
  2. Hart DL, Cook KF, Mioduski JE, Teal CR, Crane PK. The simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with shoulder impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:290–298
  3. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL. Development and initial validation of the Back Pain Functional Scale. Spine. 2000;25:2095–2102
  4. Stratford PW, Binkley JM. A comparison study of the Back Pain Functional Scale and Roland Morris Questionnaire. J Rheumatol. 2000;27:1928–1936
  5. Hart DL. Assessment of unidimensionality of physical functioning in patients receiving therapy in acute, orthopedic outpatient centers. J Outcome Meas. 2000;4:413–430
  6. Hart DL, Wright BD. Development of an index of physical functional health status in rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:655–665
  7. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: a user's manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1993;
  8. Jette DU, Jette AM. Physical therapy and health outcomes in patients with spinal impairments. Phys Ther. 1996;76:930–945
  9. Resnik L, Hart DL. Using clinical outcomes to identify expert physical therapists. Phys Ther. 2003;83:990–1002
  10. Taylor SJ, Taylor AE, Foy MA, Fogg AJ. Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain. Spine. 1999;24:1805–1812
  11. Patrick DL, Deyo RA, Atlas SJ, Singer DE, Chapin A, Keller RB. Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica. Spine. 1995;20:1899–1908
  12. Wolfe EW. Equating and item banking with the Rasch model. J Appl Meas. 2000;1:409–434
  13. Wright BD, Bell SR. Item banks: what, why, how. J Educ Meas. 1984;21:331–345
  14. Wainer H, Mislevy RJ. Item response theory, item calibration, and proficiency estimation. In:  Wainer H editors. Computerized adaptive testing. A primer. 2nd ed.. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000;p. 61–100
  15. Dorans NJ. Scaling and equating. In:  Wainer H editors. Computerized adaptive testing. A primer. 2nd ed.. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000;p. 135–158
  16. Thissen D, Mislevy RJ. Testing algorithms. In:  Wainer H editors. Computerized adaptive testing. A primer. 2nd ed.. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000;p. 101–134
  17. Lord FM. Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1980;
  18. McHorney CA. Use of item response theory to link 3 modules of functional status from the Asset and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:383–394
  19. Cook L, Petersen N. Problems related to the use of conventional and item response theory equating methods in less than optimal circumstances. Appl Psychol Meas. 1987;11:225–244
  20. Petersen NS, Kolen MJ, Hoover HD. Scaling, norming, and equating. In:  Linn RL editors. Educational measurement. 3rd ed.. New York, NY: Macmillan; 1989;p. 221–262
  21. Millsap RE, Everson HT. Methodology review: statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Appl Psychol Meas. 1993;17:297–334
  22. Steinberg L, Thissen D, Wainer H. Validity. In:  Wainer H editors. Computerized adaptive testing. A Primer. 2nd ed.. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000;p. 188–229
  23. Dobrzykowski EA, Nance T. The Focus On Therapeutic Outcomes (FOTO) outpatient orthopedic rehabilitation database: results of 1994–1996. J Rehabil Outcomes Meas. 1997;1:56–60
  24. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36), II: psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993;31:247–263
  25. World Health Organization . International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001;
  26. Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl II):II-28–II-42
  27. Lazarsfeld Pf, Henry NW. Latent structure analysis. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin; 1968;
  28. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1991;
  29. Stout WF. A new item response theory modeling approach with applications to unidimensionality assessment and ability estimation. Psychometrika. 1990;55:293–325
  30. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user's guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén Publishers; 2001;
  31. Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE. The feasibility of applying item response theory to measures of migraine impact: a re-analysis of three clinical studies. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:887–902
  32. Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Stahan EJ. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods. 1999;4:272–299
  33. McDonald RP. Test theory: a unified treatment. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum; 1999;
  34. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 1998;
  35. Hu LT, Bentler P. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equation Model. 1999;6:1–55
  36. Tucker L, Lewis C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrica. 1973;38:1–10
  37. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In:  Bollen KA,  Long JS editor. Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1993;
  38. March HW, Balla JR, Hau K. An evaluation of increment fit indices: a clarification of mathematical and empirical properties. In:  Marcoulides GA,  Schumacker RE editor. Advanced structural equation modeling: issues and techniques. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1996;p. 315–353
  39. Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:561–573
  40. Linacre JM. A user's guide to WINSTEPS. Chicago, IL: MESA Press; 2005;
  41. Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago, IL: MESA Press; 1980;
  42. McHorney CA, Monahan PO. Postscript. Applications of Rasch analysis in health care. Med Care. 2004;42(1 Suppl):I-73–I-78
  43. Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating scale analysis. Chicago, IL: MESA Press; 1982;
  44. Dodd BG. The effect of item selection procedure and stepsize on computerized adaptive attitude measurement using the rating scale model. Appl Psychol Meas. 1990;14:355–366
  45. Andersen EB. The rating scale model. In:  van der Linden W,  Hambleton RK editor. Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer-Verlang; 1997;p. 67–84
  46. Haley SM, McHorney CA, Ware JE. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10): I. Unidimensionality and reproducibility of the Rasch item scale. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:671–684
  47. Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001;
  48. Hart DL. The power of outcomes: FOTO Industrial Outcomes Tool—initial assessment. Work. 2001;16:39–51
  49. Crane PK, van Belle G, Larson EB. Test bias in a cognitive test: differential item functioning in the CASI. Stat Med. 2004;23:241–256
  50. Samejima F. Estimation of ability using a response pattern of graded responses. Psycometrika Monogr. 1969;No. 17
  51. Samejima F. Graded response model. In:  van der Linden W,  Hambleton RK editor. Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1997;p. 85–100
  52. PARSCALE for Windows. v 4.1 (computer program). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International; 2003;
  53. StataCorp . Stata statistical software: release 9.1. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation; 2005;
  54. Hart DL, Mioduski JE. CAT Development and testing software user's guide. Knoxville, TN: FOTO, Inc.; 2004;
  55. Linacre JM. Estimating measures with known polytomous item difficulties. Rasch Meas Trans. 1998;12:638
  56. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Rogers W, Raczek AE, Rachel Lu JF. The validity and relative precision of MOS short and long form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care. 1992;30:MS253–MS265
  57. Werneke M, Hart DL. Discriminant validity and relative precision for classifying patients with nonspecific neck and back pain by anatomic pain patterns. Spine. 2003;28:161–166
  58. Norquist JM, Fitzpatrick R, Dawson J, Jenkinson C. Comparing alternative Rasch-based methods vs raw scores in measuring change in health. Med Care. 2004;42(1 Suppl):I-25–I-36
  59. Fitzpatrick R, Norquist JM, Dawson J, Jenkinson C. Rasch scoring of outcomes of total hip replacement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:68–74
  60. Liang MH, Larson MG, Cullen KE, Schwartz JA. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum. 1985;28:542–547
  61. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993;31:247–263
  62. McHorney CA, Haley SM, Ware JE. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10): II. Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:451–461
  63. White L, Velozo C. Assessing unidimensionality of the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:822–831
  64. Kucukdeveci AA, Tennant A, Elhan AH, Niyazoglu H. Validatation of the Turkish version of the Roland–Morris disability questionnaire for use in low back pain. Spine. 2001;26:2738–2743
  65. Stroud MW, McKnight POE, Jensen MP. Assessment of self-reported physical activity in patients with chronic pain: development of an abbreviated Roland–Morris disability scale. Pain. 2004;5:257–263
  66. Garratt AM. Rasch analysis of the Roland disability questionnaire. Spine. 2003;28:79–84
  67. Luigi T, Granger CV, Fiedler BC. A unidimensional pain/disability measure for low-back pain syndromes. Pain. 1997;69:269–278
  68. Dijkers MP. A computer adaptive testing simulation applied to the FIM instrument motor component. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:384–393
  69. Lohr KN. Health outcomes methodology symposium. Summary and recommendations. Med Care. 2000;38(9, Suppl II):II-194–II-208
  70. Revicki DA, Cella DF. Health status assessment for the twenty-first century: item response theory, item banking and computer adaptive testing. Qual Life Res. 1997;6:595–600
  71. Ware JE. Conceptualization and measurement of health-related quality of life: comments on an evolving field. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84(Suppl 2):S43–S51
  72. Bode RK, Lai JS, Cella D, Heinemann AW. Issues in the development of an item bank. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84(Suppl 2):S52–S60
  73. Lai JS, Cella D, Chang CH, Bode RK, Heinemann AW. Item banking to improve, shorten and computerize self-reported fatigue: an illustration of steps to create a core item bank from the FACIT-Fatigue Scale. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:485–501
  74. Bode RK, Cella D, Lai JS, Heinemann AW. Developing an initial physical function item bank from existing sources. J Appl Meas. 2003;4:124–136
  75. Spector WD, Fleishman JA. Combining activities of daily living with instrumental activities of daily living to measure functional disability. J Geronotol Soc Sci. 1998;53B:S46–S57
  76. Revicki DA, Gold K, Buckman D, Chan K, Kallich JD, Woolley JM. Imputing physical health status scores missing owing to mortality results of a simulation comparing multiple techniques. Med Care. 2001;39:61–71
  77. McHorney CA, Cohen AS. Equating health status measures with Item Response Theory. Illustrations with functional status items. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl II):II-43–II-59
  78. Dodd BG, Koch WR, De Ayala RJ. Operational characteristics of adaptive testing procedures using the graded response model. Appl Psychol Meas. 1989;13:129–143
  79. Smith RM, Schumacker RE, Bush MJ. Using item mean squares to evaluate fit to the Rasch model. J Outcome Meas. 1998;2:66–78

PII: S0895-4356(06)00118-1

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.10.017

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 59, Issue 9 , Pages 947-956 , September 2006

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution