An application of computerised adaptive testing for measuring health status in patients with knee osteoarthritis

References

• Dillon CF, Rasch CK, Gu Q, Hirsch R. Prevalence of knee osteoarthritis in the United States: arthritis data from the third national health and nutrition examination survey 1991–94. J Rheum 2006;33:1–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Badley EM. Rheumatic diseases: the unnoticed elephant in the room (Editorial). J Rheum 2008;38:6–7.
   Google Scholar
• Croft P. Osteoarthritis in primary care. BMJ 2006;333:867–868.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ettinger WH, Davis MA, Neuhaus JM, Mallon KP. Long-term physical functioning in persons with knee osteoarthritis from NHANES. I. Effects of comorbid medical conditions. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:809–815.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March LM, Bachmeier CJ. Economics of osteoarthritis: a global perspective. Baillieres Clin Rheumatol 1997;11:817–834.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoke J, Desjardins S, Perruccio AV. Economic burden. In: Badley EM, DesMeules M, editors. Arthritis in Canada: an ongoing challenge. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2003. (Cat. no. H39-4/14-2003E).
   Google Scholar
• Zhang W, Moskowitz RW, Nuki G, Abramson S, Altman RD, Arden N, Bierma-Zeinstra S, Brandt KD, Croft P, Doherty M, Dougados M, Hochberg M, Hunter DJ, Kwoh K, Lohmander LS, Tugwell P. OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis. II. OARSI evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines. Osteoarthr Cartilage 2008;16:137–162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988;15:1833–1840.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473–483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engel GL. The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model. Am J Psychiatry 1980;137:535–544.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gershon RC. Computer adaptive testing. J Appl Meas 2005;6:109–127.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cook KF, Teal CR, Bjorner JB, Cella D, Chang CH, Crane PK, Gibbons LE, Hays RD, McHorney CA, Ocepek-Welikson K, Raczek AE, Teresi JA, Reeve BB. IRT health outcomes data analysis project: an overview and summary. Qual Life Res 2007;16:121–132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fliege H, Becker J, Walter OB, Bjorner JB, Klapp BF. Development of computer-adaptive test for depression (D-CAT). Qual Life Res 2005;14:2277–2291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Hart DL, Mioduski JE, Stratford PW. Simulated computerized adaptive tests for measuring functional status were efficient with good discriminant validity in patients with hip, knee, or foot/ankle impairments. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:629–638.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart DL, Mioduski JE, Werneke MW, Stratford PW. Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with lumbar spine impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:947–956.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jette AM, Haley SM, Tao W, Ni P, Moed R, Meyers D, Zurek M. Prospective evaluation of the AM-PAC-CAT in outpatient rehabilitation settings. Phys Ther 2007;87:385–398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kocalevent RD, Rose M, Becker J, Walter OB, Fliege H, Bjorner JB, Kleiber D, Klapp BF. An evaluation of patient-reported outcomes found computerized adaptive testing was efficient in assessing stress perception. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:278–287.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopec JA, Badii M, McKenna M, Lima VD, Sayre EC, Dvorak M. Computerized adaptive testing in back pain: validation of the CAT-5D-QOL. Spine 2008;33:1384–1390.
   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
• Lord FM. Some test theory for tailored testing. In: Holtzman WH, editor. Computer assisted instruction, testing and guidance. New York, NY: Harper and Row; 1970. pp 139–183.
   Google Scholar
• Ware JE, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Bayliss MS, Batenhorst A, Dahlöf CG, Tepper S, Dowson A. Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact. Qual Life Res 2003;12:935–952.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altman R, Asch E, Bloch D, Bole G, Borenstein D, Brandt K, Christy W, Cooke TD, Greenwald R, Hochberg M, Howell D, Kaplan D, Koopman W, Longley III S, Mankin H, McShane DJ, Medsger Jr. T, Meenan R, Mikkelsen W, Moskowitz R, Murphy W, Rothschild B, Segal M, Sokoloff L, Wolfe F. Development of criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis. Classification of osteoarthritis of the knee. Diagnostic and therapeutic criteria committee of the American rheumatism association. Arthritis Rheum 1986;29:1039–1049.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tüzün EH, Eker L, Aytar A, Daşkapan A, Bayramoğlu M. Acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Turkish version of WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Osteoarthr Cartilage 2005;13:28–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruce B, Fries JF. The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire: a review of its history, issues, progress, and documentation. J Rheumatol 2003;30:167–178.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Küçükdeveci AA, Sahin H, Ataman S, Griffiths B, Tennant A. Issues in cross-cultural validity: example from the adaptation, reliability, and validity testing of a Turkish version of the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum 2004;51:14–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II. http://www.who.int/icidh/whodas/.
   Google Scholar
• Ulug B, Ertugrul A, Gogus A, Kabakcı E. Yetiyitimi degerlendirme cizelgesinin (WHODAS II) sizofreni hastalarında gecerlilik ve güvenilirligi. Turk Psikiyatr Derg 2001;12:121–130.
   Google Scholar
• European Group for Quality of Life Assessment and Health Measurement. European Guide for Nottingham Health Profile. Brookwood-Surrey: Brookwood Medical Publications; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Küçükdeveci A, McKenna SP, Kutlay S, Gürsel Y, Whalley D, Arasil T. The development and psychometric assessment of the Turkish version of the Nottingham Health Profile. Int J Rehabil Res 2000;23:31–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user's guide. 5th ed. Los Angeles: CA; 1998–2007. http://www.statmodel.com/download/usersguide/MplusUsersGuidev5.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Pai ALH, Mullins LL, Drotar D, Burant C, Wagner J, Chaney JM. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the child uncertainty in illness scale among children with chronic illness. J Pediatr Psychol 2007;32:288–296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrich D. Rasch models for measurement. London: SAGE Publications; 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Masters G. A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika 1982;47:149–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrich D, Lyne A, Sheridan B, Luo G. RUMM2020. Rasch Unidimensional Measurement Models Software. Perth: RUMM Laboratory; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Elhan AH, Oztuna D, Kutlay S, Kucukdeveci AA, Tennant A. An initial application of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) for measuring disability in patients with low back pain. BMC Musculoskel Dis 2008;9:166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16:297–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher WP. Reliability statistics. Rasch Measure Trans 1992;6:238.
   Google Scholar
• Öztuna D, Öztuna E, Elhan AH. SmartCAT. Ankara: Turkey; 2008. http://www.smartcatworld.com/ (Web site under construction).
   Google Scholar
• Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlation: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psycho Bull 1979;86:420–428.
   Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marais I, Andrich D. RUMMss. Rasch unidimensional measurement models simulation studies software. Perth: The University of Western Australia; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Measure Trans 1994;7:28.
   Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. BMJ 1995;310:170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulcahey MJ, Haley SM, Duffy T, Pengsheng N, Betz RR. Measuring physical functioning in children with spinal impairments with computerized adaptive testing. J Pediatr Orthop 2008;28:330–335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jette AM, McDonough CM, Haley SM, Ni P, Olarsch S, Latham N, Hambleton RK, Felson D, Kim YJ, Hunter D. A computer-adaptive disability instrument for lower extremity osteoarthritis research demonstrated promising breadth, precision, and reliability. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:807–815.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Ware JE Jr, Sullivan E, Straus WL. An evaluation of a patient-reported outcomes found computerized adaptive testing was efficient in assessing osteoarthritis impact. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:715–723.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjorner JB, Kosinski M, Ware JE. Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: an application of item response theory to the Headache Impact Test (HIT™). Qual Life Res 2003;12:913–933.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haley SM, Gandek B, Siebens H, Black-Schaffer RM, Sinclair SJ, Tao W, Coster WJ, Ni P, Jette AM. Computerized adaptive testing for follow-up after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. II. Participation outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89:275–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijkers MP. A computer adaptive testing simulation applied to the FIM instrument motor component. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84:384–393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramachandran S, Lundy JJ, Coons SJ. Testing the measurement equivalence of paper and touch-screen versions of the EQ-5D visual analog scale (EQ VAS). Qual Life Res 2008;17:1117–1120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar