Advertisement

The Lower Extremity Physical Function Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Was Reliable, Valid, and Efficient for Patients With Musculoskeletal Impairments

Published:March 04, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2021.02.005

      Highlights

      • The newly developed regional lower extremity physical function (LEPF) patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) is reliable, valid, and efficient.
      • The LEPF computerized adaptive test and LEPF short form can be used for research and clinical care.
      • Clinicians may simplify PROM administration by using a single regional measure.

      Abstract

      Objective

      To calibrate the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) items into a regional lower extremity physical function (LEPF) item bank and assess reliability, validity, and efficiency of computerized adaptive test (CAT) and short form (SF) administration modes.

      Design

      Retrospective cohort.

      Setting

      Data were collected from patients treated in outpatient rehabilitation clinics for musculoskeletal impairments of the hip, knee, foot, and ankle that responded to all 20 LEFS items at intake.

      Participants

      Patients aged 14 years or older who started an episode of care during January 2016-October 2019 and identified the lower extremity region as the source of a primary musculoskeletal complaint. Total cohort included 78,186 patients (mean age, 53±19y, range, 14-89y).

      Interventions

      Not applicable.

      Main Outcome Measures

      Item response theory (IRT) model assumptions of unidimensionality, local item independence, item fit, and presence of differential item functioning (DIF) were studied. LEPF-CAT– and LEPF-SF–generated scores were evaluated.

      Results

      An 18-item solution was supported for its unidimensionality and fit to the IRT model, with reliability estimates >0.9 for all administration modes. No DIF impact on LEPF scores was identified. Scores discriminated between multiple patient groups in clinically logical ways and were highly responsive to change, with negligible floor or ceiling effects. CAT scores were generated using an average of 4.9 items (median, 4).

      Conclusions

      The LEPF scores were reliable, valid, and efficient for assessing perceived physical function of patients with musculoskeletal impairments of the hip, knee, foot, and ankle; thus, it was found suitable for research and routine clinical administration. These findings are limited to the type of patients included in this study, with further validation needed to assess their generalizability.

      Keywords

      List of abbreviations:

      CAT (computerized adaptive test), CBFA (confirmatory bifactor analysis), CFA (confirmatory factor analysis), CFI (comparative fit index), DIF (differential item functioning), ECV (explained common variance), EFA (exploratory factor analysis), FOTO (Focus on Therapeutic Outcomes), IRT (item response theory), LEFS (Lower Extremity Functional Scale), LEPF (lower extremity physical function), omega-H (omega-hierarchical), PROM (patient-reported outcome measure), RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation), SF (short form), SRMR (standardized root mean square residual), TLI (Tucker-Lewis index)
      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

        • Bingham 3rd, CO
        • Noonan VK
        • Auger C
        • Feldman DE
        • Ahmed S
        • Bartlett SJ
        Montreal accord on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) use series - paper 4: patient-reported outcomes can inform clinical decision making in chronic care.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 89: 136-141
        • Cook KF
        • Schalet BD
        Montreal accord on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) use series - commentary.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 89: 111-113
        • Gabriel SE
        • Normand SL
        Getting the methods right–the foundation of patient-centered outcomes research.
        N Engl J Med. 2012; 367: 787-790
        • Porter I
        • Goncalves-Bradley D
        • Ricci-Cabello I
        • et al.
        Framework and guidance for implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: evidence, challenges and opportunities.
        J Comp Eff Res. 2016; 5: 507-519
        • Porter ME
        • Larsson S
        • Lee TH
        Standardizing patient outcomes measurement.
        N Engl J Med. 2016; 374: 504-506
        • Swinkels IC
        • van den Ende CH
        • de Bakker D
        • et al.
        Clinical databases in physical therapy.
        Physiother Theory Pract. 2007; 23: 153-167
        • Vos T
        • Flaxman AD
        • Naghavi M
        • et al.
        Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.
        Lancet. 2012; 380: 2163-2196
        • Hoy DG
        • Smith E
        • Cross M
        • et al.
        Reflecting on the global burden of musculoskeletal conditions: lessons learnt from the global burden of disease 2010 study and the next steps forward.
        Ann Rheum Dis. 2015; 74: 4-7
        • Hart DL
        • Connolly JB
        Pay-for-performance for physical therapy and occupational therapy: Medicare part B services. Grant #18-P-93066/9-01.
        Health & Human Services/Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2006
        • 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
        • Mehta SP
        • Fulton A
        • Quach C
        • Thistle M
        • Toledo C
        • Evans NA
        Measurement properties of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale: a systematic review.
        J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2016; 46: 200-216
        • Stratford PW
        • Binkley JM
        • Watson J
        • Heath-Jones T
        Validation of the LEFS on patients with total joint arthroplasty.
        Physiother Can. 2000; 52: 97-205
        • Lourduraj B
        • Barnawal SP
        • Pattabi K
        • et al.
        Application of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale and its correlation with lymphedema health-related quality of life on lower limb filarial lymphedema patients.
        Lymphat Res Biol. 2020; 18: 254-260
        • Hart DL
        • Deutscher D
        • Werneke MW
        • Holder J
        • Wang YC
        Implementing computerized adaptive tests in routine clinical practice: experience implementing CATs.
        J Appl Meas. 2010; 11: 288-303
        • Edelen MO
        • Reeve BB
        Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement.
        Qual Life Res. 2007; 16: 5-18
        • Hays RD
        • Morales LS
        • Reise SP
        Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century.
        Med Care. 2000; 38: II28-II42
        • Reise SP
        • Ainsworth AT
        • Haviland MG
        Item response theory: fundamentals, applications, and promise in psychological research.
        Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2005; 14: 95-101
        • 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
        • Hart DL
        • Wang YC
        • Stratford PW
        • Mioduski JE
        A computerized adaptive test for patients with hip impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008; 89: 2129-2139
        • 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
        • 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
        • Crane PK
        • Gibbons LE
        • Ocepek-Welikson K
        • et al.
        A comparison of three sets of criteria for determining the presence of differential item functioning using ordinal logistic regression.
        Qual Life Res. 2007; 16: 69-84
        • Kleinman M
        • Teresi JA
        Differential item functioning magnitude and impact measures from item response theory models.
        Psychol Test Assess Model. 2016; 58: 79-98
        • Teresi JA
        • Jones RN
        Methodological issues in examining measurement equivalence in patient reported outcomes measures: methods overview to the two-part series, "measurement equivalence of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) short forms".
        Psychol Test Assess Model. 2016; 58: 37-78
        • Hung M
        • Baumhauer JF
        • Brodsky JW
        • et al.
        Psychometric comparison of the PROMIS physical function CAT with the FAAM and FFI for measuring patient-reported outcomes.
        Foot Ankle Int. 2014; 35: 592-599
        • Hung M
        • Baumhauer JF
        • Latt LD
        • et al.
        Validation of PROMIS (R) physical function computerized adaptive tests for orthopaedic foot and ankle outcome research.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471: 3466-3474
        • Kortlever JTP
        • Leyton-Mange A
        • Keulen MHF
        • et al.
        PROMIS physical function correlates with KOOS, JR in patients with knee pain.
        J Knee Surg. 2020; 33: 903-911
        • Nixon DC
        • McCormick JJ
        • Johnson JE
        • Klein SE
        PROMIS pain interference and physical function scores correlate with the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) in patients with hallux valgus.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017; 475: 2775-2780
        • Papuga MO
        • Beck CA
        • Kates SL
        • Schwarz EM
        • Maloney MD
        Validation of GAITRite and PROMIS as high-throughput physical function outcome measures following ACL reconstruction.
        J Orthop Res. 2014; 32: 793-801
        • Rothrock NE
        • Kaat AJ
        • Vrahas MS
        • et al.
        Validation of PROMIS physical function instruments in patients with an orthopaedic trauma to a lower extremity.
        J Orthop Trauma. 2019; 33: 377-383
        • Slullitel GA
        CORR Insights®: PROMIS pain interference and physical function scores correlate with the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) in patients with hallux valgus.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017; 475: 2781-2782
      1. Cook KF. A conceptual introduction to item response theory. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrdbllMYq8M. Accessed March 16, 2021.

        • Cook KF
        • O'Malley KJ
        • Roddey TS
        Dynamic assessment of health outcomes: time to let the CAT out of the bag?.
        Health Serv Res. 2005; 40: 1694-1711
        • Reeve BB
        Item response theory modeling in health outcomes measurement.
        Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2003; 3: 131-145
        • Choi SW
        • Cook KF
        • Dodd BG
        Parameter recovery for the partial credit model using MULTILOG.
        J Outcome Meas. 1997; 1: 114-142
        • Linacre JM
        Investigating rating scale category utility.
        J Outcome Meas. 1999; 3: 103-122
        • Linacre JM
        Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness.
        J Appl Meas. 2002; 3: 85-106
        • Zijlmans EAO
        • Tijmstra J
        • van der Ark LA
        • Sijtsma K
        Item-score reliability in empirical-data sets and its relationship with other item indices.
        Educ Psychol Meas. 2018; 78: 998-1020
        • Cutillo L
        Parametric and multivariate methods.
        in: Ranganathan S Gribskov M Nakai K Schönbach C Encyclopedia of bioinformatics and computational biology. Academic Press, Oxford2019: 738-746
        • Cella D
        • Yount S
        • Rothrock N
        • et al.
        The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during its first two years.
        Med Care. 2007; 45: S3-11
        • Bentler PM
        Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
        Psychol Bull. 1990; 107: 238-246
      2. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JA, editors. Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1993. p. 136–62.

        • Hu LT
        • Bentler P
        Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
        Struct Equ Modeling. 1999; 6: 1-55
        • Kline RB
        Principles and practice of structural equation modeling.
        2nd ed. Guilford Press, New York2005
        • McDonald RP
        Test theory: a unified treatment.
        Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ1999
        • West SG
        • Finch JF
        • Curran PJ
        SEM with nonnormal variables.
        (editor)in: Hoyle RH Structural equation modeling: concepts issues and applications. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA1995: 56-75
        • Reeve BB
        • Hays RD
        • Bjorner JB
        • et al.
        Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS).
        Med Care. 2007; 45: S22-S31
        • Reise SP
        • Widaman KF
        • Pugh RH
        Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: two approaches for exploring measurement invariance.
        Psychol Bull. 1993; 114: 552-566
        • Reise SP
        • Morizot J
        • Hays RD
        The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures.
        Qual Life Res. 2007; : 19-31
        • Reise SP
        • Scheines R
        • Widaman KF
        • Haviland MG
        Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling:a bifactor perspective.
        Educ Psychol Meas. 2013; 73: 5-26
        • Bland JM
        • Altman DG
        Cronbach's alpha.
        BMJ. 1997; 314: 572
        • Rodriguez A
        • Reise SP
        • Haviland MG
        Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures.
        J Pers Assess. 2016; 98: 223-237
        • Quinn HO
        Bi-factor models, explained common variance (ECV), and the usefulness of scores from unidimensional item response theory analyses.
        University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill2014
        • Samejima F
        Estimation of ability using a response pattern of graded responses.
        Psycometrika. 1969; (Monograph 17)
        • Crisan DR
        • Tendeiro JN
        • Meijer RR
        Investigating the practical consequences of model misfit in unidimensional IRT models.
        Appl Psychol Meas. 2017; 41: 439-455
        • Stark S
        • Chernyshenko OS
        • Drasgow F
        • Williams BA
        Examining assumptions about item responding in personality assessment: should ideal point methods be considered for scale development and scoring?.
        J Appl Psychol. 2006; 91: 25-39
        • Choi SW
        • Gibbons LE
        • Crane PK
        lordif: an R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and Monte Carlo simulations.
        J Stat Softw. 2011; 39: 1-30
        • Cappelleri JC
        • Jason Lundy J
        • Hays RD
        Overview of classical test theory and item response theory for the quantitative assessment of items in developing patient-reported outcomes measures.
        Clin Ther. 2014; 36: 648-662
        • Green BF
        • Bock RD
        • Humphreys LG
        • Linn RL
        • Reckase MD
        Technical guidelines for assessing computerized adaptive tests.
        J Educ Meas. 1984; 21: 347-360
        • Choi S
        Firestar: computerized adaptive testing (CAT) simulation program for polytomous IRT models.
        Appl Psychol Meas. 2009; 33: 644-645
        • Chakravarty EF
        • Bjorner JB
        • Fries JF
        Improving patient reported outcomes using item response theory and computerized adaptive testing.
        J Rheumatol. 2007; 34: 1426-1431
        • Pilkonis PA
        • Yu L
        • Dodds NE
        • Johnston KL
        • Maihoefer CC
        • Lawrence SM
        Validation of the depression item bank from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) in a three-month observational study.
        J Psychiatr Res. 2014; 56: 112-119
        • Deutscher D
        • Hart DL
        • Stratford PW
        • Dickstein R
        Construct validation of a knee-specific functional status measure: a comparative study between the United States and Israel.
        Phys Ther. 2011; 91: 1072-1084
        • Jette DU
        • Jette AM
        Physical therapy and health outcomes in patients with spinal impairments.
        Phys Ther. 1996; 76 ([discussion: 42-5]): 930-941
        • Jette DU
        • Jette AM
        Physical therapy and health outcomes in patients with knee impairments.
        Phys Ther. 1996; 76: 1178-1187
        • Terwee CB
        • Bot SD
        • de Boer MR
        • et al.
        Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60: 34-42
        • Wamper KE
        • Sierevelt IN
        • Poolman RW
        • Bhandari M
        • Haverkamp D
        The Harris hip score: do ceiling effects limit its usefulness in orthopedics?.
        Acta Orthop. 2010; 81: 703-707