Computerized adaptive test for patients with foot or ankle impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function.

Dennis L Hart, Ying-Chih Wang, Paul W Stratford, Jerome E Mioduski
Author Information
  1. Dennis L Hart: Focus on Therapeutic Outcomes, Inc., 551 Yopps Cove Road, White Stone, VA, 22578-2403, USA. hart@fotoinc.com

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We tested the item response theory (IRT) model assumptions of the original item bank, and evaluated the practical and psychometric adequacy, of a computerized adaptive test (CAT) for patients with foot or ankle impairments seeking rehabilitation in outpatient therapy clinics.
METHODS: Data from 10,287 patients with foot or ankle impairments receiving outpatient physical therapy were analyzed. We first examined the unidimensionality, fit, and invariance IRT assumptions of the CAT item bank. Then we evaluated the efficiency of the CAT administration and construct validity and sensitivity of change of the foot/ankle CAT measure of lower-extremity functional status (FS).
RESULTS: Results supported unidimensionality, model fit, and invariance of item parameters and patient ability estimates. On average, the CAT used seven items to produce precise estimates of FS that adequately covered the content range with negligible floor and ceiling effects. Patients who were older, had more chronic symptoms, had more surgeries, had more comorbidities, and did not exercise prior to receiving rehabilitation reported worse discharge FS. Seventy-one percent of patients obtained statistically significant change at follow-up. Change of 8 FS units (scale 0-100) represented minimal clinically important improvement.
CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the foot/ankle item bank met IRT assumptions and that the CAT FS measure was precise, valid, and responsive, supporting its use in routine clinical application.

References

  1. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Jan;61(1):17-33 [PMID: 18083459]
  2. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Sep;52(9):861-73 [PMID: 10529027]
  3. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Nov;61(11):1113-24 [PMID: 18619788]
  4. Stat Med. 2004 Jan 30;23(2):241-56 [PMID: 14716726]
  5. Control Clin Trials. 1989 Dec;10(4):407-15 [PMID: 2691207]
  6. Med Care. 2000 Sep;38(9 Suppl):II73-82 [PMID: 10982092]
  7. Physiother Theory Pract. 2007 May-Jun;23(3):153-67 [PMID: 17558879]
  8. Phys Ther. 2008 Feb;88(2):270-85 [PMID: 18042656]
  9. Health Serv Res. 2006 Aug;41(4 Pt 1):1296-316 [PMID: 16899008]
  10. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004 Oct;57(10):1008-18 [PMID: 15528051]
  11. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Nov;59(11):1174-82 [PMID: 17027428]
  12. Med Care. 2006 Nov;44(11 Suppl 3):S115-23 [PMID: 17060818]
  13. Med Care. 2000 Sep;38(9 Suppl):II3-6 [PMID: 10982085]
  14. Phys Ther. 1999 Apr;79(4):371-83 [PMID: 10201543]
  15. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Apr;85(4):661-6 [PMID: 15083444]
  16. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007 May-Jun;21(3):233-8 [PMID: 17351082]
  17. Qual Life Res. 2003 Dec;12(8):935-52 [PMID: 14651413]
  18. Qual Life Res. 1997 Aug;6(6):595-600 [PMID: 9330558]
  19. Qual Life Res. 2005 Dec;14(10):2277-91 [PMID: 16328907]
  20. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Dec;54(12):1204-17 [PMID: 11750189]
  21. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Nov;89(11):2129-39 [PMID: 18996242]
  22. Qual Life Res. 2007;16 Suppl 1:69-84 [PMID: 17554640]
  23. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Jun;58(6):595-602 [PMID: 15878473]
  24. Eval Health Prof. 2005 Jun;28(2):160-71 [PMID: 15851771]
  25. Phys Ther. 2007 Apr;87(4):385-98 [PMID: 17311888]
  26. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 May;86(5):932-9 [PMID: 15895339]
  27. BMJ. 2001 Nov 10;323(7321):1123-4 [PMID: 11701584]
  28. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Jun;58(6):629-38 [PMID: 15878477]
  29. Med Care. 2000 Sep;38(9 Suppl):II28-42 [PMID: 10982088]
  30. Phys Ther. 2003 Nov;83(11):990-1002 [PMID: 14577826]
  31. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 May;59(5):478-84 [PMID: 16632136]
  32. Med Care. 2004 Jan;42(1 Suppl):I49-61 [PMID: 14707755]
  33. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Mar;59(3):290-8 [PMID: 16488360]
  34. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Sep;59(9):947-56 [PMID: 16895818]
  35. Ann Intern Med. 1997 Oct 15;127(8 Pt 2):743-50 [PMID: 9382391]
  36. Med Care. 2007 May;45(5 Suppl 1):S3-S11 [PMID: 17443116]
  37. BMJ. 1994 Jun 4;308(6942):1499 [PMID: 8019287]

MeSH Term

Adaptation, Psychological
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Ankle Injuries
Computers
Disability Evaluation
Female
Foot Injuries
Humans
Lower Extremity
Male
Middle Aged
Models, Theoretical
Outpatients
Pilot Projects
Psychometrics
Quality of Life
ROC Curve
Software
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0CATitemFSpatientsIRTassumptionsbankfootankleimpairmentsmodelevaluatedadaptivetestrehabilitationoutpatienttherapyreceivingunidimensionalityfitinvariancechangefoot/anklemeasureestimatesprecisevalidresponsiveOBJECTIVE:testedresponsetheoryoriginalpracticalpsychometricadequacycomputerizedseekingclinicsMETHODS:Data10287physicalanalyzedfirstexaminedefficiencyadministrationconstructvaliditysensitivitylower-extremityfunctionalstatusRESULTS:ResultssupportedparameterspatientabilityaverageusedsevenitemsproduceadequatelycoveredcontentrangenegligiblefloorceilingeffectsPatientsolderchronicsymptomssurgeriescomorbiditiesexercisepriorreportedworsedischargeSeventy-onepercentobtainedstatisticallysignificantfollow-upChange8unitsscale0-100representedminimalclinicallyimportantimprovementCONCLUSIONS:concludedmetsupportinguseroutineclinicalapplicationComputerizedproducedmeasuresfunction

Similar Articles

Cited By