4.6 Article

Measurement precision and efficiency of multidimensional computer adaptive testing of physical functioning using the pediatric evaluation of disability inventory

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Volume 87, Issue 9, Pages 1223-1229

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.05.018

Keywords

outcome assessment (health care); pediatrics; psychometrics; rehabilitation

Funding

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [K02 HD45354-01] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To compare the measurement efficiency and precision of a multidimensional computer adaptive testing (M-CAT) application to a unidimensional CAT (U-CAT) comparison using item bank data from 2 of the functional skills scales of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI). Design: Using existing PEDI mobility and self-care item banks, we compared the stability of item calibrations and model fit between unidimensional and multidimensional Rasch models and compared the efficiency and precision of the U-CAT- and M-CAT-simulated assessments to a random draw of items. Setting: Pediatric rehabilitation hospital and clinics. Participants: Clinical and normative samples. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Not applicable. Results: The M-CAT had greater levels of precision and efficiency than the separate mobility and self-care U-CAT versions when using a similar number of items for each PEDI subdomain. Equivalent estimation of mobility and self-care scores can be achieved with a 25% to 40% item reduction with the M-CAT compared with the U-CAT. Conclusions: M-CAT applications appear to have both precision and efficiency advantages compared with separate UCAT assessments when content subdomains have a high correlation. Practitioners may also realize interpretive advantages of reporting test score information for each subdomain when separate clinical inferences are desired.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available