4.5 Article

Computerized adaptive test for patients with foot or ankle impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function

Journal

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
Volume 17, Issue 8, Pages 1081-1091

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-008-9381-y

Keywords

item response theory; lower-extremity functional scale; rehabilitation; computerized adaptive testing

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective We tested the item response theory (IRT) model assumptions of the original item bank, and evaluated the practical and psychometric adequacy, of a computerized adaptive test (CAT) for patients with foot or ankle impairments seeking rehabilitation in outpatient therapy clinics. Methods Data from 10,287 patients with foot or ankle impairments receiving outpatient physical therapy were analyzed. We first examined the unidimensionality, fit, and invariance IRT assumptions of the CAT item bank. Then we evaluated the efficiency of the CAT administration and construct validity and sensitivity of change of the foot/ankle CAT measure of lower-extremity functional status (FS). Results Results supported unidimensionality, model fit, and invariance of item parameters and patient ability estimates. On average, the CAT used seven items to produce precise estimates of FS that adequately covered the content range with negligible floor and ceiling effects. Patients who were older, had more chronic symptoms, had more surgeries, had more comorbidities, and did not exercise prior to receiving rehabilitation reported worse discharge FS. Seventy-one percent of patients obtained statistically significant change at follow-up. Change of 8 FS units (scale 0-100) represented minimal clinically important improvement. Conclusions We concluded that the foot/ankle item bank met IRT assumptions and that the CAT FS measure was precise, valid, and responsive, supporting its use in routine clinical application.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available