4.6 Article

A computer-adaptive disability instrument for lower extremity osteoarthritis research demonstrated promising breadth, precision, and reliability

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 62, 期 8, 页码 807-815

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.004

关键词

Outcome assessment (health care); Osteoarthritis; Clinical trials; Disability; Item response theory; Computer-adaptive testing

资金

  1. NIH [R01 AR 051870, 1F32HD056763]
  2. Independent Scientist Award [K02 HD45354-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To develop and evaluate a prototype measure (C,A-DISABILITY-CAT) for osteoarthritis research using item response theory (IRT) and computer-adaptive test (CAT) methodologies. Study Design and Setting: We constructed an item bank consisting of 33 activities commonly affected by lower extremity (LE) osteoarthritis. A sample of 323 adults with LE. osteoarthritis reported their degree of limitation in performing everyday activities, and completed the Health Assessment Questionnaire-II (HAQ-II). We used confirmatory factor analyses to assess scale unidimensionality and IRT methods to calibrate the items and examine the fit of the data. Using CAT simulation analyses, we examined the performance of OA-DISABILITY-CATs of different lengths compared with the full-item bank and the HAQ-II. Results: One distinct disability domain was identified. The 10-item OA-DISABILITY-CAT demonstrated a high degree of accuracy compared with the full-item bank (r = 0.99). The item bank and the HAQ-II scales covered a similar estimated scoring range. In terms of reliability, 95% of OA-DISABILITY reliability estimates were over 0.83 vs. 0.60 for the HAQ-II. Except at the highest scores, the 10-item OA-DISABILITY-CAT demonstrated superior precision to the HAQ-II. Conclusion: The prototype OA-DISABILITY-CAT demonstrated promising measurement properties compared with the HAQ-II, and is recommended for use in LE osteoarthritis research. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据