Development of an item bank for a computerised adaptive test of upper-extremity function

References

• Barr T. Digest of data on persons with disabilities. In: Orthotics and prosthetics listBarr T, editor. Washington DC, USA: Department for Education; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Bot SDM, Terwee CB, van der Windt DAWM, Bouter LM, Dekker J, Vet HCW. Clinimetric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Ann of Rheum Dis 2004;63:335–341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Niu J, Kelly-Hayes M, Chaisson CE, Aliabadi P, Felson DT. Prevalence of syptomatic hand osteoarthritis and its impact on functional status among the elderly. Am J Epidemiol 2002;156:1021–1027.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeve BB, Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Cook K, Crane PK, Teresi JA, Thissen D, Revicki DA, Weiss DJ, Hambleton RK, Liu H, Gershon R, Reise SP, Lai JS, Cella D, on behalf of the PROMIS cooperative group. Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care 2007;45(5 Suppl 1):S22–S31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang YC, Hart DL, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE. Clinical interpretation of a lower-extremity functional scale-derived computerized adaptive test. Phys Ther 2009;89:957–968.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose M, Bjorner JB, Becker J, Fries JF, Ware JE. Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:17–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leavitt M. Medscape's response to the Institute of Medicine Report: crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. MedGenMed 2001;3:2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA. Guidance for industry, patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: Draft guidance. Silver Spring, MD (Maryland), USA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA2006.
   Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Hart DL. Using clinical outcomes to identify expert physical therapists. Phys Ther 2003;83:990–1002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Liu D, Hart DL, Mor V. Benchmarking physical therapy clinic performance: statistical methods to enhance internal validity when using observational data. Phys Ther 2008;88:1078–1087.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaton DE, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Wright JG, Tarasuk V, Bombardier C. Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. J Hand Ther 2001;14:128–146.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Research Committee ASaES. A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1994;3:347–352.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Constant CR, Murley AG. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop 1987;214:160–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung KC, Hamil JB, Walters MR, Hayward RA. The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ): assessment of responsiveness to clinical change. Ann Plast Surg 1999;42:619–622.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leeb BF, Sautner J, Andel I, Rintelen B. SACRAH: a Score for Assessment and Quantification of Chronic Rheumatic Affections of the Hands. Rheumatology 2003;42:1–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lippitt SB, Harryman DT, Matsen FA. A practical tool for evaluating function: the simple shoulder test. The shoulder: a balance of mobility and stabilityIn: Matsen FA, Fu FH, Hawkins RJ, editors. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1993. pp 501–518.
   Google Scholar
• Hart DL, Cook KF, Mioduski JE, Teal CR, Crane PK. Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with shoulder impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:290–298.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velozo CA, Wang Y, Lehman L, Wang JH. Utilizing Rasch measurement models to develop a computer adaptive self-report of walking, climbing, and running. Disabil Rehabil 2008;30:458–467.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHODAS-II). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz N, Sudman S. Answering questions: methodology for determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey researchSan Francisco: Bass Publishers; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. WINSTEPS Rasch measurement. 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Muthen L, Muthen B. Mplus Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen; 1998–2007.
   Google Scholar
• Mahony D. Psychological Assessments of Bariatric Surgery Patients. Development, Reliability, and Exploratory Factor Analysis of the PsyBari. Obes Surg 2010:12. DOI of 10.1007/s11695-010-0108-0.
   Google Scholar
• Fabrigar L, Wegener D, MacCallum R, Strahan E. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods 1999;3:272–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linacre J. Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J Appl Meas 2002;3:85–106.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item response theory for psychologistsMahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Smith EV. Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. J Appl Meas 2002;3:205–231.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wright BD, Stone MH. Best test designChicago: MESA Press; 1979.
   Google Scholar
• Wright BD, Linacre JM. Reasonable item mean-square fit values. Rasch Meas Trans 1994;8:370.
   Google Scholar
• Mallinson T, Stelmack J, Velozo C. A comparison of the separation ratio and coefficient α in the creation of minimum item sets. Med Care 2004;42(1 Suppl.):I17–I24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating scale analysisChicago: Measurement, Evaluation, Statistics and Assessment Press; 1982.
   Google Scholar
• Chen CC, Granger CV, Peimer CA, Moy OJ, Wald S. Manual ability measure (MAM-16): A preliminary report on a new patient-centered and task-oriented outcome measure of hand function. J Hand Surg B 2005;30:207–216.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Penta M, Thonnard JL, Tesio L. ABILHAND: a Rasch-built measure of manual ability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:1038–1042.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luquet C, Chau N, Nadif M, Guillemin F, Gavillot C, Petry D, Moreau T, Bourgkard E, Hecquet B, André JM, Mur JM. Unidimenstionality of a functional measure for patients with an injured upper limb. Rew Epidemiol Sante Publique 1996;44:248–261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wainer H, Dorans NJ, Eignor D, Flaugher R, Green BF, Mislevy RJ, Steinberg L, Thissen D. Computerized adaptive testing: a primerMahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 2000;38(9 Suppl.):II28–II42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lord FM. Applications of item response theory to practical testing problemsHillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of item response theoryNewbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Xing D, Hambleton RK. Impact of test design, item quality, and item bank size on the psychometric properties of computer-based credentialing examinations. Educ Psychol Meas 2004;64:15–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar