Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 90, Issue 8 , Pages 1340-1348 , August 2009

Clinical Interpretation of Computerized Adaptive Test–Generated Outcome Measures in Patients With Knee Impairments

  • Ying-Chih Wang, OTR, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Focus On Therapeutic Outcomes Inc, Knoxville, TN
    • Sensory Motor Performance Program, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to Ying-Chih Wang, OTR, PhD, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Sensory Motor Performance Program, 345 E Superior, Ste 1312, Chicago, IL, 60611
    • ,
  • Dennis L. Hart, PT, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Focus On Therapeutic Outcomes Inc, Knoxville, TN
    • ,
  • Paul W. Stratford, PT, MS

      Affiliations

    • School of Rehabilitation Science and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    • ,
  • Jerome E. Mioduski, MS

      Affiliations

    • Focus On Therapeutic Outcomes Inc, Knoxville, TN

References 

  1. Fliege H, Becker J, Walter OB, Bjorner JB, Klapp BF, Rose M. Development of a computer-adaptive test for depression (D-CAT). Qual Life Res. 2005;14:2277–2291
  2. Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Ware JE, Sullivan E, Straus WL. An evaluation of a patient-reported outcomes found computerized adaptive testing was efficient in assessing osteoarthritis impact. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:715–723
  3. Ware JE, Bjorner JB, Kosinski M. Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: a brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl):II73–II82
  4. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:54
  5. Jette AM, Tao W, Norweg A, Haley S. Interpreting rehabilitation outcome measurements. J Rehabil Med. 2007;39:585–590
  6. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington (DC): National Academy Pr; 2001;
  7. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2006;4:79–98
  8. Johnson DA. Pay for performance: ACG guide for physicians. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:2119–2122
  9. Hart DL, Connolly JB. Pay-for-performance for physical therapy and occupational therapy: Medicare Part B services. Health and Human Services/Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services http://www.cms.hhs.gov/TherapyServices/downloads/P4PFinalReport06-01-06.pdf2006;Accessed April 29, 2009
  10. Liang MH. Longitudinal construct validity: establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl):II84–II90
  11. 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
  12. Hart DL, Wang YC, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE. Computerized adaptive test for patients with knee impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:1113–1124
  13. 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
  14. Swinkels IC, van den Ende CH, de Bakker D, et al. Clinical databases in physical therapy. Physiother Theory Pract. 2007;23:153–167
  15. Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Lott SA, Riddle DL. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application (North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network). Phys Ther. 1999;79:371–383
  16. Alcock GK, Stratford PW. Validation of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale on athletic subjects with ankle sprains. Physiother Can. 2002;54:233–240
  17. Stratford PW. Getting more from the literature: estimating the standard error of measurement from reliability studies. Physiother Can. 2004;56:27–30
  18. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Watson J, Heath-Jones T. Validation of the LEFS on patients with total joint arthroplasty. Physiother Can. 2000;52:97–105
  19. Stratford PW, Hart DL, Binkley JM, Kennedy DM, Alcock GK, Hanna SE. Interpreting lower extremity functional status scores. Physiother Can. 2005;57:154–162
  20. World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability, and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001;
  21. Schmitt JS, Di Fabio RP. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:1008–1018
  22. Hays RD, Brodsky M, Johnston MF, Spritzer KL, Hui KK. Evaluating the statistical significance of health-related quality-of-life change in individual patients. Eval Health Prof. 2005;28:160–171
  23. Lord FM. Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1980;
  24. Linacre JM. Estimating measures with known polytomous item difficulties. Rasch Meas Trans. 1998;12:638
  25. Jacobson NS, Truax P. Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991;59:12–19
  26. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:1204–1217
  27. Deyo RA, Patrick DL. The significance of treatment effects: the clinical perspective. Med Care. 1995;33(4 Suppl):AS286–AS291
  28. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415
  29. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27(3 Suppl):S178–S189
  30. Stratford PW, Riddle DL. Assessing sensitivity to change: choosing the appropriate change coefficient. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:23
  31. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:395–407
  32. Hsieh YW, Wang CH, Wu SC, Chen PC, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the Barthel Index in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21:233–238
  33. Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis. 1986;39:897–906
  34. Stratford PW, Binkley FM, Riddle DL. Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther. 1996;76:1109–1123
  35. Arnould C, Penta M, Renders A, Thonnard JL. ABILHAND-Kids: a measure of manual ability in children with cerebral palsy. Neurology. 2004;63:1045–1052
  36. Kielhofner G, Dobria L, Forsyth K, Basu S. The construction of keyforms for obtaining instantaneous measures from the occupational performance history interview rating scales. Occup Ther J Res. 2005;25:1–10
  37. Woodbury ML, Velozo CA. Potential for outcomes to influence practice and support clinical competency. OT Pract. 2005;10:7–8
  38. Stineman MG, Ross RN, Fiedler R, Granger CV, Maislin G. Staging functional independence validity and applications. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:38–45
  39. Stineman MG, Ross RN, Fiedler R, Granger CV, Maislin G. Functional Independence Staging: conceptual foundation, face validity, and empirical derivation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:29–37
  40. Tao W, Haley SM, Coster WJ, Ni P, Jette AM. An exploratory analysis of functional staging using an item response theory approach. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:1046–1053
  41. Perry J, Garrett M, Gronley JK, Mulroy SJ. Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke. 1995;26:982–989
  42. Andrich DA. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:561–573
  43. In:  Mills CN,  Potenza MT,  Fremer JJ,  Ward WC editor. Computer-based testing: building the foundation for future assessments. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002;
  44. In:  Wainer H editors. Computerized adaptive testing: a primer. 2nd ed.. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000;
  45. Jette AM, Haley SM, Tao W, et al. Prospective evaluation of the AM-PAC-CAT in outpatient rehabilitation settings. Phys Ther. 2007;87:385–398
  46. Deutscher D, Hart DL, Horn SD, Dickstein R, Gutvirtz M. Implementing an integrated electronic outcomes and electronic health record process to create a foundation for clinical practice improvement. Phys Ther. 2008;88:270–285
  47. Gandek B, Sinclair SJ, Jette AM, Ware JE. Development and initial psychometric evaluation of the participation measure for post-acute care (PM-PAC). Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;86:57–71
  48. Kopec JA, Badii M, McKenna M, Lima VD, Sayre EC, Dvorak M. Computerized adaptive testing in back pain: validation of the CAT-5D-QOL. Spine. 2008;33:1384–1390
  49. Hart DL, Wang YC, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE. Computerized adaptive test for patients with hip impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:2129–2139
  50. Hart DL, Wang YC, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE. Computerized adaptive test for patients with foot or ankle impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:1081–1091
  51. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:459–468
  52. Stratford PW, Binkley J, Soloman P, Finch E, Gill C, Moreland J. Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire. Phys Ther. 1996;76:359–368
  53. Riddle DL, Stratford PW, Binkley JM. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris back pain questionnaire: part 2. Phys Ther. 1998;78:1197–1207
  54. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL, Guyatt GH. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris back pain questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther. 1998;78:1186–1196
  55. Goldsmith CH, Boers M, Bombardier C, Tugwell P. Criteria for clinically important changes in outcomes: development, scoring and evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis patient and trial profiles (OMERACT Committee). J Rheumatol. 1993;20:561–565
  56. Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Manniche C, Korsholm L, Grunnet-Nilsson N. Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:82
  57. Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine. 2008;33:90–94
  58. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistic notes: regression towards the mean. Br Med J. 1994;308:1499

 A commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has conferred or will confer a financial benefit on one or more of the authors.

PII: S0003-9993(09)00286-X

doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.02.008

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 90, Issue 8 , Pages 1340-1348 , August 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution