한국전문물리치료학회지 (Physical Therapy Korea)

  • 제19권3호
  • /
  • Pages.124-131
  • /
  • 2012
  • /
  • 1225-8962(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-982X(eISSN)
한국전문물리치료학회 (Korean Research Society of Physical Therapy)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Computer Adaptive Testing Method for Measuring Disability in Patients With Back Pain

  • Choi, Bongsam (Dept. of Physical Therapy, College of Health and Welfare, Woosong University)
  • 투고 : 2012.07.16
  • 심사 : 2012.08.06
  • 발행 : 2012.09.17
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Most conventional instruments measuring disability rely on total score by simply adding individual item responses, which is dependent on the items chosen to represent the underlying construct (test-dependent) and a test statistic, such as coefficient alpha for the estimate of reliability, varying from sample to sample (sample-dependent). By contrast, item response theory (IRT) method focuses on the psychometric properties of the test items instead of the instrument as a whole. By estimating probability that a respondent will select a particular rating for an item, item difficulty and person ability (or disability) can be placed on same linear continuum. These estimates are invariant regardless of the item used (test-free measurement) and the ability of sample applied (sample-free measurement). These advantages of IRT allow the creation of invariantly calibrated large item banks that precisely discriminate the disability levels of individuals. Computer adaptive testing (CAT) method often requiring a testing algorithm promise a means for administering items in a way that is both efficient and precise. This method permits selectively administering items that are closely matched to the ability level of individuals (measurement precision) and measuring the ability without the loss of precision provided by the full item bank (measurement efficiency). These measurement properties can reasonably be achieved using IRT and CAT method. This article aims to investigate comprehensive overview of the existing disability instrument for back pain and to inform physical therapists of an alternative innovative way overcoming the shortcomings of conventional disability instruments. An understanding of IRT and CAT method will equip physical therapist with skills in interpreting the measurement properties of disability instruments developed using the methods.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Andersson GB. Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet. 1999;354(9178):581-585. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(99)01312-4
  2. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, et al. The Sickness Impact Profile: Development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care. 1981;19(8):787-805. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198108000-00001
  3. Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Koke AJ. Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: A comparison of different instruments. Pain. 1996;65(1): 71-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(95)00149-2
  4. Bjorner J, Ware Jr JE. Using modern psychometric methods to measure health outcomes. Med Outcome Trust Monitor. 1998;3:12-16.
  5. Bossons CR, Levy J, Sutterlin CE 3rd. Reconstructive spinal surgery: Assessment of outcome. South Med J. 1996;89(11):1045-1052. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007611-199611000-00004
  6. Carter WB, Bobbitt RA, Bergner M, et al. Validation of an interval scaling: The sickness impact profile. Health Serv Res. 1976;11(4):516-528.
  7. Daltroy LH., Cats-Baril WL, Katz JN, et al. The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment instrument: Reliability and validity tests. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(6): 741-749. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199603150-00017
  8. Davidson M, Keating JL. A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: Reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther. 2002;82(1):8-24.
  9. DeVellis RF. Classical test theory. Med Care. 2006;44(11 Suppl 3):S50-S59. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000245426.10853.30
  10. Deyo RA. Comparative validity of the sickness impact profile and shorter scales for functional assessment in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1986;11(9):951-954. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198611000-00017
  11. Deyo RA. Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988;69(12): 1044-1053.
  12. Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998;23(18):2003-2013.
  13. Elhan AH, Oztuna D, Kutlay S, et al. An initial application of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) for measuring disability in patients with low back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:166. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-9-166
  14. Fairbank JC. Use and abuse of Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(25):2787-2789. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815b9e9d
  15. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(22):2940-2952. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017
  16. Fisher WP Jr. Foundations for health status metrology: The stability of MOS SF-36 PF-10 calibrations across samples. J La State Med Soc. 1999;151(11):566-578.
  17. Fliege H, Becker J, Walter OB, et al. Evaluation of a computer-adaptive test for the assessment of depression (D-CAT) in clinical application. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2009;18(1):23-36. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.274
  18. Flynn KE, Dombeck CB, DeWitt EM, et al. Using item banks to construct measures of patient reported outcomes in clinical trials: Investigator perceptions. Clin Trials. 2008;5(6):575-586. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774508098414
  19. Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ. A comparison of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Phys Ther. 2001;81(2):776-788.
  20. Frost H, Lamb SE, Stewart-Brown S. Responsiveness of a patient specific outcome measure compared with the Oswestry Disability Index v2.1 and Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire for patients with subacute and chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(22):2450-2457. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818916fd
  21. Haley SM, Coster WJ, Andres PL, et al. Score comparability of short forms and computerized adaptive testing: Simulation study with the activity measure for post-acute care. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004b;85(4):661-666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2003.08.097
  22. Haley SM, Gandek B, Siebens H, et al. Computerized adaptive testing for follow-up after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation: II. Participation outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(2): 275-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.08.150
  23. Haley SM, Ni P, Ludlow LH, et al. Measurement precision and efficiency of multidimensional computer adaptive testing of physical functioning using the pediatric evaluation of disability inventory. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006a;87(9): 1223-1229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2006.05.018
  24. Hambleton RK. Emergence of item response modeling in instrument development and data analysis. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl):II60-II65.
  25. Hart DL, Cook KF, Mioduski JE, et al. Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with shoulder impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(3):290-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.08.006
  26. Hart DL, Wang YC, Stratford PW, et al. A computerized adaptive test for patients with hip impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008a;89(11):2129-2139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2008.04.026
  27. Hart DL, Wang YC, Stratford PW, et al. Computerized adaptive test for patients with knee impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008b;61(11):1113-1124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.01.005
  28. Hol AM, Vorst HCM, Mellenbergh GJ. Computerized adaptive testing for polytomous motivation items: Administration mode effects and a comparison with short forms. Applied Psychological Measure. 2007;31:412-429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621606297314
  29. Jette AM, Haley SM. Contemporary measurement techniques for rehabilitation outcomes assessment. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37(6):339-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/16501970500302793
  30. Jette AM, Haley SM, Ni P, et al. Creating a computer adaptive test version of the late-life function and disability instrument. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2008;63(11):1246-1256. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/63.11.1246
  31. Kopec JA. Measuring functional outcomes in persons with back pain: A review of back-specific questionnaires. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25 (24):3110-3114. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00005
  32. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM. Functional disability scales for back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(17) :1943-1949. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199509000-00021
  33. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, et al. The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Measurement properties. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(3):341-352. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199502000-00016
  34. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, et al. The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Conceptualization and development. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(2):151-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(96)00526-4
  35. Liang MH, Lew RA, Stucki G, et al. Measuring clinically important changes with patient-oriented questionnaires. Med Care. 2002;40(4 Suppl):II45-II51.
  36. McHorney CA. Generic health measurement: Past accomplishments and a measurement paradigm for the 21st century. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(8 Pt 2):743-750. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-127-8_Part_2-199710151-00061
  37. McHorney CA. Health status assessment methods for adults: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Annu Rev Public Health. 1999;20:309-335. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.20.1.309
  38. McHorney CA, Haley SM, Ware JE Jr. 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(4):451-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00424-6
  39. Muller U, Roder C, Greenough CG. Back related outcome assessment instruments. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(Suppl 1):S25-S31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-1054-8
  40. Page SJ, Shawaryn MA, Cernich AN, et al. Scaling of the revised Oswestry low back pain questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(11):1579-1584. https://doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2002.34604
  41. Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983a;8(2):141-144. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004
  42. Shone CC, Quinn CP, Wait R, et al. Proteolytic cleavage of synthetic fragments of vesicle-associated membrane protein, isoform-2 by botulinum type B neurotoxin. Eur J Biochem. 1993;217(3):965-971. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-1033.1993.tb18327.x
  43. Stewart AL. Conceptual challenges in linking physical activity and disability research. Am J Prev Med. 2003;25(3 Suppl 2):137-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(03)00187-9
  44. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL. Health status measures: Strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther, 1996a;76(10):1109-1123.
  45. Taylor SJ, Taylor AE, Foy MA, et al. Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24(17):1805-1812. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199909010-00010
  46. Velozo CA, Choi B, Zylstra SE, et al. Measurement qualities of a self-report and therapist-scored functional capacity instrument based on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. J Occup Rehabil. 2006;16(1):109-122.
  47. Velozo CA, Kielhofner G, Lai JS. The use of Rasch analysis to produce scale-free measurement of functional ability. Am J Occup Ther. 1999;53(1):83-90. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.53.1.83
  48. Velozo CA, Lai JS, Mallinson T, et al. Maintaining instrument quality while reducing items: Application of Rasch analysis to a self-report of visual function. J Outcome Meas. 2000;4(3): 667-680.
  49. Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220-233. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003
  50. Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, et al. Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(8):935-952. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026115230284
  51. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473-483. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002
  52. Weiss D. Improving measurement quality and efficiency with adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement. 1982;6:473-492. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168200600408
  53. White LJ, Velozo CA. The use of Rasch measurement to improve the Oswestry classification scheme. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(6): 822-831. https://doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2002.32685
  54. Williams RM, Myers AM. Functional Abilities Confidence Scale: A clinical measure for injured workers with acute low back pain. Phys Ther. 1998a;78(6):624-634.
  55. Wright BD, Linacre JM. Observations are always ordinal; Measurements, however, must be interval. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1989;70(12):857-860.

피인용 문헌

  1. Selecting Common Items for Linking the Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire and a Short Form of Self-Reported Activity Measure for Low Back Pain vol.22, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.12674/ptk.2015.22.3.061
  2. An Innovative Wellness Program Promoting Participation in Physical Activity of Community-Dwelling Frail Elderly vol.24, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.12674/ptk.2017.24.3.047