Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
We examined the presence and impact of differential item functioning (DIF) in a set of knee-specific functional status (FS) items administered using computerized adaptive testing (CAT) among English (United States) and Hebrew (Israel) speaking patients receiving therapy for knee impairments. DIF occurs in an item if probabilities of endorsing responses differ across groups after controlling for the FS measured.
We analyzed data from 28,320 patients (14,160 U.S., 14,160 Israel) who completed the knee-specific CAT. Items were assessed for DIF by gender, age, symptom acuity, surgical history, exercise history, and language spoken using a hybrid technique that combines multiple ordinal logistic regression and item response theory FS estimates.
Several items had non-uniform DIF for covariates including language, but unadjusted and DIF-adjusted functional status estimates were in strong concordance [ICC(2,1) values ≥0.97], and differences between unadjusted and adjusted FS scores represented <0.4% of the unadjusted FS standard deviation.
Statistically significant DIF was identified in some items but represented negligible clinical impact. Results suggested no need to adjust items for DIF when assessing FS outcomes across groups of patients with knee impairments who answer the knee CAT items in English in the United States or Hebrew in Israel. These findings suggest negligible differences in cultural perceptions between English and Hebrew wording of these knee-specific CAT FS items.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
American Physical Therapy Association. (2001). Guide to physical therapist practice. Physical Therapy, 81(1), 1–768.
Swinkels, I. C., Hart, D. L., Deutscher, D., van den Bosch, W. J., Dekker, J., de Bakker, D. H., et al. (2008). Comparing patient characteristics and treatment processes in patients receiving physical therapy in the United States, Israel and the Netherlands. Cross sectional analyses of data from three clinical databases. BMC Health Services Research, 8(1), 163. PubMedCrossRef
Carter, S. K., & Rizzo, J. A. (2007). Use of outpatient physical therapy services by people with musculoskeletal conditions. Physical Therapy, 87(5), 497–512. PubMed
MedPAC. (2006). Toward better value in purchasing outpatient therapy services, (Chap. 6). Report to the Congress: Increasing the value of medicare. Washington, DC: Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, pp. 117–141.
World Confederation for Physical Therapy. (2007). Declarations of Principle and Position Statements. Available at: www.wcpt.org/policies/principles/index.php. Accessed August 11, 2008.
Hahn, E. A., Holzner, B., Kemmler, G., Sperner-Unterweger, B., Hudgens, S. A., & Cella, D. (2005). Cross-cultural evaluation of health status using item response theory: FACT-B comparisons between Austrian and U.S. patients with breast cancer. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 28(2), 233–259. CrossRef
Tennant, A., Penta, M., Tesio, L., Grimby, G., Thonnard, J. L., Slade, A., et al. (2004). Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through differential item functioning within the framework of the Rasch model: The PRO-ESOR project. Medical Care, 42(1 Suppl), I37–I48. PubMed
Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), II28–II42. PubMed
Patrick, D. L., & Chiang, Y. P. (2000). Convening health outcomes methodologists. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), II3–II6. PubMed
van der Linden, W., & Hambleton, R. K. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York, NY: Springer.
Wainer, H. (Ed.). (2000). Computerized adaptive testing. A primer (2nd ed.). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jette, A. M., Haley, S. M., Tao, W., Ni, P., Moed, R., Meyers, D., et al. (2007). Prospective evaluation of the AM-PAC-CAT in outpatient rehabilitation settings. Physical Therapy, 87(4), 385–398. PubMed
Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Becker, J., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E. (2008). Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(1), 17–33. PubMedCrossRef
Steinberg, L., Thissen, D., & Wainer, H. (2000). Validity. In H. Wainer (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (2nd ed., pp. 185–229). Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.
Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Millsap, R. E., & Everson, H. T. (1993). Methodology review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 287–334.
Hart, D. L., & Connolly, J. B. (2006). Pay-for-performance for physical therapy and occupational therapy: Medicare Part B services. Grant #18-P-93066/9-01. Health & Human Services/Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Deutscher, D., Hart, D. L., Dickstein, R., Horn, S. D., & Gutvirtz, M. (2008). Implementing an integrated electronic outcomes and electronic health record process to create a foundation for clinical practice improvement. Physical Therapy, 88(2), 270–285. PubMed
Binkley, J. M., Stratford, P. W., Lott, S. A., & Riddle, D. L. (1999). The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): Scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. Physical Therapy, 79(4), 371–383. PubMed
Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43(4), 561–573. CrossRef
Thissen, D., & Mislevy, R. J. (2000). Testing algorithms. In H. Wainer (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (2nd ed., pp. 101–134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Linacre, J. M. (1998). Estimating measures with known polytomous item difficulties. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 12(2), 638.
Sands, W. A., Waters, B. K., & McBride, J. R. (Eds.). (1997). Computerized adaptive testing. From inquiry to operation. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of ability using a response pattern of graded responses. Psycometrika. Monograph 17.
Linacre, J. M. (2008). A user’s guide to WINSTEPS. Chicago, IL: MESA.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dodd, B. G., Koch, W. R., & De Ayala, R. J. (1989). Operational characteristics of adaptive testing procedures using the Graded Response Model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13(2), 129–143. CrossRef
Deutscher, D., Horn, S. D., Dickstein, R., Hart, D. L., Smout, R. J., Gutvirtz, M., et al. (2009). Associations between treatment processes, patient characteristics and outcomes in outpatient physical therapy practice. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. (in press).
Crane, P. K., Gibbons, L. E., Ocepek-Welikson, K., Cook, K., Cella, D., Narasimhalu, K., et al. (2007). A comparison of three sets of criteria for determining the presence of differential item functioning using ordinal logistic regression. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 69–84. PubMedCrossRef
PARSCALE for Windows. (2003). v 4.1 Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Stata Statistical Software. (2007). Release 9.2. College Station, TX.
Hart, D. L., Werneke, M. W., George, S. Z., Matheson, J. W., Wang, Y. C., Cook, K. F., et al. (2009) Screening for elevated levels of fear-avoidance beliefs regarding work or physical activities in patients receiving outpatient therapy. Physical Therapy, 89(8), 770–785. PubMed
Wang, Y. C., Hart, D. L., Stratford, P. W., & Mioduski, J. E. (2009). Clinical interpretation of computerized adaptive test generated outcomes measures in patients with knee impairments. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. (in press).
Nandakumar, R., & Roussos, L. (2001). CATSIB: A modified SIBTEST procedure to detect differential item functioning in computerized adaptive tests. Report no. LSAC-R-97-11. Princeton, NJ: Law School Admission Council.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2006). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Lei, P. W., Chen, S. Y., & Yu, L. (2006). Comparing methods of assessing differential item functioning in a computerized adaptive testing environment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43(3), 245–264. CrossRef
Maldonado, G., & Greenland, S. (1993). Simulation study of confounder-selection strategies. American Journal of Epidemiology, 138(11), 923–936. PubMed
- Differential item functioning was negligible in an adaptive test of functional status for patients with knee impairments who spoke English or Hebrew
Dennis L. Hart
Paul K. Crane
- Springer Netherlands