Advertisement

Assessing Mobility in Children Using a Computer Adaptive Testing Version of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory

      Abstract

      Haley SM, Raczek AE, Coster WJ, Dumas HM, Fragala-Pinkham MA. Assessing mobility in children using a computer adaptive testing version of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory.

      Objective

      To assess score agreement, validity, precision, and response burden of a prototype computerized adaptive testing (CAT) version of the Mobility Functional Skills Scale (Mob-CAT) of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) as compared with the full 59-item version (Mob-59).

      Design

      Computer simulation analysis of cross-sectional and longitudinal retrospective data; and cross-sectional prospective study.

      Setting

      Pediatric rehabilitation hospital, including inpatient acute rehabilitation, day school program, outpatient clinics, community-based day care, preschool, and children’s homes.

      Participants

      Four hundred sixty-nine children with disabilities and 412 children with no disabilities (analytic sample); 41 children without disabilities and 39 with disabilities (cross-validation sample).

      Interventions

      Not applicable.

      Main outcome measures

      Summary scores from a prototype Mob-CAT application and versions using 15-, 10-, and 5-item stopping rules; scores from the Mob-59; and number of items and time (in seconds) to administer assessments.

      Results

      Mob-CAT scores from both computer simulations (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] range, .94–.99) and field administrations (ICC=.98) were in high agreement with scores from the Mob-59. Using computer simulations of retrospective data, discriminant validity, and sensitivity to change of the Mob-CAT closely approximated that of the Mob-59, especially when using the 15- and 10-item stopping rule versions of the Mob-CAT. The Mob-CAT used no more than 15% of the items for any single administration, and required 20% of the time needed to administer the Mob-59.

      Conclusions

      Comparable score estimates for the PEDI mobility scale can be obtained from CAT administrations, with losses in validity and precision for shorter forms, but with a considerable reduction in administration time.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Turk M.A.
        Early development-related conditions.
        in: Fuhrer M. Assessing medical rehabilitation practices the promise of outcomes research. Brookes, Baltimore1997: 367-392
        • Granger C.
        • Braun S.
        Outcome assessments and measures in pediatrics.
        in: Mulcahey M.J. The child with a spinal cord injury. Am Acad Orthop Surgeons, Rosemont1996: 709-718
        • Haley S.M.
        • Russo K.J.
        Musculoskeletal outcomes in pediatric physical therapy practice.
        Orthop Phys Ther Clin N Am. 2000; 9: 17-36
        • Iyer L.V.
        • Haley S.M.
        • Watkins M.P.
        • Dumas H.M.
        Establishing minimal clinically important differences for scores on the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory for inpatient rehabilitation.
        Phys Ther. 2003; 83: 888-898
        • Bedell G.M.
        • Haley S.M.
        • Coster W.J.
        • Smith K.W.
        Developing a responsive measure of change for paediatric brain injury inpatient rehabilitation.
        Brain Inj. 2002; 16: 659-671
        • Ottenbacher K.J.
        • Msall M.E.
        • Lyon N.
        • et al.
        Functional assessment and care of children with neurodevelopmental disabilities.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2000; 79: 114-123
        • Young N.
        • Wright J.
        Measuring pediatric physical function.
        J Pediatr Orthop. 1995; 15: 244-253
        • Haley S.M.
        Motor assessment tools for infants and young children.
        in: Hirschfeld H. Movement disorders in children. Vol 36. Karger, Basel1992: 278-283
        • Goldberg M.J.
        Commentary.
        J Pediatr Orthop. 1991; 11: 682-685
        • Msall M.
        Tools for measuring daily activities in children.
        in: Pediatrics. 2002: 317-319
        • Lollar D.
        • Simeonsson R.
        • Nanda U.
        Measures of outcome in children and youth.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000; 81: S46-S51
        • Law M.
        • King G.
        • Russell D.
        • MacKinnon E.
        • Hurley P.
        • Murphy C.
        Measuring outcomes in children’s rehabilitation.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999; 80: 629-636
        • Haley S.M.
        • Coster W.J.
        • Ludlow L.H.
        Pediatric functional outcome measures.
        Pediatr Rehabil. 1991; 2: 689-723
        • Hays R.
        • Morales L.
        • Reise S.
        Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century.
        Med Care. 2000; 38: II28-II42
        • Ware J.
        • Bjorner J.
        • Kosinski M.
        Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing.
        Med Care. 2000; 38: II73-II82
        • Ware J.
        Conceptualization and measurement of health-related quality of life.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 84: S43-S51
      1. Wainer H. Computerized adaptive testing a primer. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah2000 (Translator)
        • Revicki D.A.
        • Cella D.F.
        Health status assessment for the twenty-first century.
        Qual Life Res. 1997; 6: 595-600
        • Dijkers M.
        A computer adaptive testing simulation applied to the FIM instrument motor component.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 84: 384-393
        • Bjorner J.
        • Kosinski M.
        • Ware J.E.
        Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches.
        Qual Life Res. 2003; 12: 913-933
        • Bjorner J.
        • Kosinski M.
        • Ware J.E.
        Using item response theory to calibrate the Headache Impact Test (HIT) to the metric of traditional headache scales.
        Qual Life Res. 2003; 12: 981-1002
        • Ware Jr, J.
        • Kosinski M.
        • Bjorner J.
        • et al.
        Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact.
        Qual Life Res. 2003; 12: 935-952
        • Haley S.
        • Coster W.J.
        • Andres P.L.
        • Kosinski M.
        • Ni P.
        Score comparability of short-forms and computerized adaptive testing.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004; 85: 661-666
        • Haley S.M.
        • Coster W.J.
        • Ludlow L.H.
        • Haltiwanger J.
        • Andrellos P.
        Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. Trustees Boston Univ, Boston1992
        • Embretson S.E.
        • Reise S.P.
        Item response theory for psychologists. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah2000 (p 123)
        • Wright F.V.
        • Boschen K.A.
        The Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI).
        Can J Rehabil. 1993; 7: 41-42
        • Nichols D.S.
        • Case-Smith J.
        Reliability and validity of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory.
        Pediatr Phys Ther. 1996; 8: 15-24
        • Feldman A.B.
        • Haley S.M.
        • Coryell J.
        Concurrent and construct validity of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory.
        Phys Ther. 1990; 70: 602-610
        • Fragala M.A.
        • Haley S.M.
        • Dumas H.M.
        • Rabin J.P.
        Classifying mobility recovery in children and youth with brain injury during hospital-based rehabilitation.
        Brain Inj. 2002; 16: 149-160
        • Dumas H.M.
        • Haley S.M.
        • Ludlow L.H.
        • Rabin J.P.
        Functional recovery in pediatric brain injury during inpatient rehabilitation.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 81: 661-669
        • Ostensjo S.
        • Strinnholm M.
        • Carlsson M.
        • Dahl M.
        Everyday functioning in young children with cerebral palsy.
        Dev Med Child Neurol. 2003; 45: 603-612
        • Norrlin S.
        • Strinnholm M.
        • Carlsson M.
        • Dahl M.
        Factors of significance for mobility in children with myelomeningocele.
        Acta Paediatr. 2003; 92: 204-210
        • Tsai P.
        • Yang T.
        • Chan R.
        • Huang P.H.
        • Wong T.T.
        Functional investigation in children with spina bifida—measured by the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI).
        Childs Nerv Syst. 2002; 18: 48-53
        • Engelbert R.H.
        • Custers J.W.
        • van der Net Y.
        • van der Graaf Y.
        • Beemer F.A.
        • Helders P.J.
        Functional outcome in osteogenesis imperfecta.
        Pediatr Phys Ther. 1997; 9: 18-22
        • Haley S.M.
        • Dumas H.M.
        • Ludlow L.H.
        Mobility outcomes of children and adolescents in an inpatient rehabilitation program.
        Phys Ther. 2001; 81: 1425-1436
        • Kothari D.H.
        • Haley S.M.
        • Gill-Body K.M.
        • Dumas H.M.
        Measuring functional change in children with acquired brain injury.
        Phys Ther. 2003; 83: 776-785
        • Dumas H.
        • Haley S.
        • Rabin J.
        Short term durability and improvement of function in traumatic brain injury.
        Brain Inj. 2001; 15: 891-902
        • Ludlow L.
        • Haley S.
        New directions in pediatric rehabilitation measurement.
        J Outcome Meas. 2000; 4: 482-490
        • Ludlow L.
        • Haley S.
        Effect of context in rating of mobility activities in children with disabilities.
        Educ Psychol Meas. 1996; 56: 122-129
        • Haley S.M.
        • Ludlow L.H.
        • Coster W.J.
        Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory.
        Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 1993; 4: 529-540
        • Hambleton R.K.
        • Swaminathan H.
        • Rogers H.J.
        Fundamentals of item response theory. Sage, Newbury Park1991
        • Van der Linden W.
        • Hambleton R.
        Handbook of modern item response theory. Springer, Berlin1997
        • Mislevy R.J.
        Recent developments in the factor analysis of categorical variables.
        J Educ Stat. 1986; 11: 3-31
        • Muthen B.
        • Muthen L.
        MPlus user’s guide. Muthen & Muthen, Los Angeles1998
        • Tjur T.
        A connection between Rasch’s item analysis model and a multiplicative Poisson model.
        Scand J Stat. 1982; 9: 23-30
        • Yen W.M.
        Scaling performance assessments.
        J Educ Meas. 1993; 30: 187-213
        • Fischer G.
        • Molenaar I.
        Rasch models. Springer-Verlag, Berlin1995
        • Andrich D.
        Rasch models for measurement. Sage, Beverly Hills1998
        • Masters G.N.
        A Rasch model for partial credit scoring.
        Psychometrika. 1982; 47: 149-174
        • Verhelst N.D.
        • Glas C.A.
        • Verstralen H.
        One-parameter logistic model OPLM. CITO, Arnhem1995
        • Warm T.
        Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response theory.
        Psychometrika. 1988; 54: 427-450
        • Bjorner J.B.
        • Kreiner S.
        • Ware J.E.
        • Damsgaard M.T.
        • Bech P.
        Differential item functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-36.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 1189-1202
        • Shrout P.E.
        • Fleiss J.L.
        Intraclass correlations.
        Psychol Bull. 1979; 86: 420-428
        • McHorney C.A.
        • Ware Jr, J.E.
        • Lu J.F.
        • Sherbourne C.D.
        The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions and reliability across diverse patient groups.
        Med Care. 1994; 32: 40-66