Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.12674/ptk.2012.19.3.124

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)
Publication Information
Physical Therapy Korea / v.19, no.3, 2012 , pp. 124-131 More about this Journal
Abstract
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.
Keywords
Computer adaptive testing; Disability; Item response theory; Low back pain;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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.   DOI
2 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.
3 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.   DOI
4 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.   DOI
5 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Weiss D. Improving measurement quality and efficiency with adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement. 1982;6:473-492.   DOI
7 White LJ, Velozo CA. The use of Rasch measurement to improve the Oswestry classification scheme. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(6): 822-831.   DOI
8 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.
9 Wright BD, Linacre JM. Observations are always ordinal; Measurements, however, must be interval. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1989;70(12):857-860.
10 Andersson GB. Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet. 1999;354(9178):581-585.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 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.   DOI
13 Bjorner J, Ware Jr JE. Using modern psychometric methods to measure health outcomes. Med Outcome Trust Monitor. 1998;3:12-16.
14 Bossons CR, Levy J, Sutterlin CE 3rd. Reconstructive spinal surgery: Assessment of outcome. South Med J. 1996;89(11):1045-1052.   DOI
15 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.
16 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Davidson M, Keating JL. A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: Reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther. 2002;82(1):8-24.
18 DeVellis RF. Classical test theory. Med Care. 2006;44(11 Suppl 3):S50-S59.   DOI
19 Deyo RA. Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988;69(12): 1044-1053.
20 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.   DOI
21 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.
22 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Fairbank JC. Use and abuse of Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(25):2787-2789.   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(22):2940-2952.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 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.
26 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.   DOI
27 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 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.
29 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
30 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.   DOI
31 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
32 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.   DOI
33 Hambleton RK. Emergence of item response modeling in instrument development and data analysis. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl):II60-II65.
34 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
35 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.   DOI
36 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.   DOI
37 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.   DOI
38 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.   DOI
39 Jette AM, Haley SM. Contemporary measurement techniques for rehabilitation outcomes assessment. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37(6):339-345.   DOI   ScienceOn
40 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.   DOI
41 Kopec JA, Esdaile JM. Functional disability scales for back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(17) :1943-1949.   DOI
42 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.   DOI
43 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
44 Liang MH, Lew RA, Stucki G, et al. Measuring clinically important changes with patient-oriented questionnaires. Med Care. 2002;40(4 Suppl):II45-II51.
45 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.   DOI
46 McHorney CA. Health status assessment methods for adults: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Annu Rev Public Health. 1999;20:309-335.   DOI   ScienceOn
47 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.   DOI
48 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
49 Muller U, Roder C, Greenough CG. Back related outcome assessment instruments. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(Suppl 1):S25-S31.   DOI
50 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
51 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.   DOI
52 Stewart AL. Conceptual challenges in linking physical activity and disability research. Am J Prev Med. 2003;25(3 Suppl 2):137-140.   DOI
53 Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL. Health status measures: Strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther, 1996a;76(10):1109-1123.
54 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
55 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.