Foot & ankle international · 2013
Time for a paradigm shift with computerized adaptive testing of general physical function outcomes measurements.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hung Man, Franklin Jeremy D, Hon Shirley D, Cheng Christine, Conrad Jillian, Saltzman Charles L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are critical to understanding the value of orthopedic treatments. We hypothesized that use of the computerized adaptive testing from a well-characterized physical function item bank would show superiority in assessing all levels of physical function compared to current standard generic physical function outcomes instruments for foot and ankle patients.
METHODS: In a population of 126 foot and ankle patients we compared the psychometric properties for three PROs: the Physical Function subscale of the Medical Outcomes General Health Survey (SF-36 PF) version 2, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) Computerized Adaptive Test (CAT), and the Lower Extremity (LE) CAT. A Rasch item response theory (IRT) model was applied to assess and compare the fit, dimensionality, reliability, validity, and coverage.
RESULTS: The unexplained variance for the PF CAT was 3.9% and the LE CAT was 2.1%, suggesting each instrument explained a single concept. The SF-36 PF had more concerning unexplained variance of 7.6%. We found no floor or ceiling effects for the PF CAT, a minimal floor effect (1.6%) but no ceiling effect for the LE CAT, and an 11.1% floor effect and 9.5% ceiling effect for the SF-36 PF.
CONCLUSION: Foot and ankle clinicians and researchers interested in measuring patient perceived functional outcomes with a generic instrument should consider using either the PF CAT or the LE CAT rather than the SF-36 PF. Further studies comparing these CATs to anatomic specific instruments are needed.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, diagnostic study.
METHODS: In a population of 126 foot and ankle patients we compared the psychometric properties for three PROs: the Physical Function subscale of the Medical Outcomes General Health Survey (SF-36 PF) version 2, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) Computerized Adaptive Test (CAT), and the Lower Extremity (LE) CAT. A Rasch item response theory (IRT) model was applied to assess and compare the fit, dimensionality, reliability, validity, and coverage.
RESULTS: The unexplained variance for the PF CAT was 3.9% and the LE CAT was 2.1%, suggesting each instrument explained a single concept. The SF-36 PF had more concerning unexplained variance of 7.6%. We found no floor or ceiling effects for the PF CAT, a minimal floor effect (1.6%) but no ceiling effect for the LE CAT, and an 11.1% floor effect and 9.5% ceiling effect for the SF-36 PF.
CONCLUSION: Foot and ankle clinicians and researchers interested in measuring patient perceived functional outcomes with a generic instrument should consider using either the PF CAT or the LE CAT rather than the SF-36 PF. Further studies comparing these CATs to anatomic specific instruments are needed.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, diagnostic study.