본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Computer Adaptive Testing Method for Measuring Disability in Patients With Back Pain

choi bongsam
한국전문물리치료학회 (Korean Research Society of Physical Therapy)|2012.09|한국전문물리치료학회지 (Physical Therapy Korea)|제19권 제3호|pp. 124-131

1

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

DisabilityLow back painItem response theoryComputer adaptive testing
주제분류물리치료학

초록

Most conventional instruments measuring disability rely on total score by simply adding individual item responses, which is dependent on the items chosen to represent the underlying construct (test-dependent) and a test statistic, such as coefficient alpha for the estimate of reliability, varying from sample to sample (sample-dependent). By contrast, item response theory (IRT) method focuses on the psychometric properties of the test items instead of the instrument as a whole. By estimating probability that a respondent will select a particular rating for an item, item difficulty and person ability (or disability) can be placed on same linear continuum. These estimates are invariant regardless of the item used (test-free measurement) and the ability of sample applied (sample-free measurement). These advantages of IRT allow the creation of invariantly calibrated large item banks that precisely discriminate the disability levels of individuals. Computer adaptive testing (CAT) method often requiring a testing algorithm promise a means for administering items in a way that is both efficient and precise. This method permits selectively administering items that are closely matched to the ability level of individuals (measurement precision) and measuring the ability without the loss of precision provided by the full item bank (measurement efficiency). These measurement properties can reasonably be achieved using IRT and CAT method. This article aims to investigate comprehensive overview of the existing disability instrument for back pain and to inform physical therapists of an alternative innovative way overcoming the shortcomings of conventional disability instruments. An understanding of IRT and CAT method will equip physical therapist with skills in interpreting the measurement properties of disability instruments developed using the methods.

Abstract

Most conventional instruments measuring disability rely on total score by simply adding individual item responses, which is dependent on the items chosen to represent the underlying construct (test-dependent) and a test statistic, such as coefficient alpha for the estimate of reliability, varying from sample to sample (sample-dependent). By contrast, item response theory (IRT) method focuses on the psychometric properties of the test items instead of the instrument as a whole. By estimating probability that a respondent will select a particular rating for an item, item difficulty and person ability (or disability) can be placed on same linear continuum. These estimates are invariant regardless of the item used (test-free measurement) and the ability of sample applied (sample-free measurement). These advantages of IRT allow the creation of invariantly calibrated large item banks that precisely discriminate the disability levels of individuals. Computer adaptive testing (CAT) method often requiring a testing algorithm promise a means for administering items in a way that is both efficient and precise. This method permits selectively administering items that are closely matched to the ability level of individuals (measurement precision) and measuring the ability without the loss of precision provided by the full item bank (measurement efficiency). These measurement properties can reasonably be achieved using IRT and CAT method. This article aims to investigate comprehensive overview of the existing disability instrument for back pain and to inform physical therapists of an alternative innovative way overcoming the shortcomings of conventional disability instruments. An understanding of IRT and CAT method will equip physical therapist with skills in interpreting the measurement properties of disability instruments developed using the methods.

참고문헌 (55)

  1. Andersson GB., "Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain", Lancet, 354(9178), pp.581~585 (1999)
  2. Bergner M, "The Sickness Impact Profile: Development and final revision of a health status measure", Med Care, 19(8), pp.787~805 (1981)
  3. Beurskens AJ, "Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: A comparison of different instruments", Pain, 65(1), pp.71~76 (1996)
  4. Bjorner J, "Using modern psychometric methods to measure health outcomes", Med Outcome Trust Monitor, 3, pp.12~16 (1998)
  5. Bossons CR, "Reconstructive spinal surgery: Assessment of outcome", South Med J, 89(11), pp.1045~1052 (1996)
  6. Carter WB, "Validation of an interval scaling: The sickness impact profile", Health Serv Res, 11(4), pp.516~528 (1976)
  7. Daltroy LH, "The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment instrument: Reliability and validity tests", Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 21(6), pp.741~749 (1996)
  8. Davidson M, "A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: Reliability and responsiveness", Phys Ther, 82(1), pp.8~24 (2002)
  9. DeVellis RF, "Classical test theory", Med Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), pp.S50~S59 (2006)
  10. Deyo RA., "Comparative validity of the sickness impact profile and shorter scales for functional assessment in low-back pain", Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 11(9), pp.951~954 (1986)
  11. Deyo RA, "Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain", Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 69(12), pp.1044~1053 (1988)
  12. Deyo RA, "Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use", Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 23(18), pp.2003~2013 (1998)
  13. Elhan AH, "An initial application of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) for measuring disability in patients with low back pain", BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 9, pp.166~ (2008)
  14. Fairbank JC, "Use and abuse of Oswestry Disability Index", Spine(Phila Pa 1976), 32(25), pp.2787~2789 (2007)
  15. Fairbank JC, "The Oswestry Disability Index", Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 25(22), pp.2940~2952 (2000)
  16. Fisher WP Jr, "Foundations for health status metrology: The stability of MOS SF-36 PF-10 calibrations across samples", J La State Med Soc, 151(11), pp.566~578 (1999)
  17. Fliege H, "Evaluation of a computer-adaptive test for the assessment of depression (D-CAT) in clinical application", Int J Methods Psychiatr Res, 18(1), pp.23~36 (2009)
  18. Flynn KE, "Using item banks to construct measures of patient reported outcomes in clinical trials: Investigator perceptions", Clin Trials, 5(6), pp.575~586 (2008)
  19. Fritz JM, "A comparison of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale", Phys Ther, 81(2), pp.776~788 (2001)
  20. Frost H, "Responsiveness of a patient specific outcome measure compared with the Oswestry Disability Index v2.1 and Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire for patients with subacute and chronic low back pain", Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 33(22), pp.2450~2457 (2008)
  21. Haley SM, "Score comparability of short forms and computerized adaptive testing: Simulation study with the activity measure for post-acute care", Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 85(4), pp.661~666 (2004)
  22. Haley SM, "Computerized adaptive testing for follow-up after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation: II. Participation outcomes", Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 89(2), pp.275~283 (2008)
  23. Haley SM, "Measurement precision and efficiency of multidimensional computer adaptive testing of physical functioning using the pediatric evaluation of disability inventory", Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 87(9), pp.1223~1229 (2006)
  24. Hambleton RK., "Emergence of item response modeling in instrument development and data analysis", Med Care, 38(9 Suppl), pp.II60~II65 (2000)
  25. Hart DL, "Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with shoulder impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function", J Clin Epidemiol, 59(3), pp.290~298 (2006)
  26. Hart DL, "A computerized adaptive test for patients with hip impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function", Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 89(11), pp.2129~2139 (2008)
  27. Hart DL, "Computerized adaptive test for patients with knee impairments produced valid and responsive measures of function", J Clin Epidemiol, 61(11), pp.1113~1124 (2008)
  28. Hol AM, "Computerized adaptive testing for polytomous motivation items: Administration mode effects and a comparison with short forms", Applied Psychological Measure, 31, pp.412~429 (2007)
  29. Jette AM, "Contemporary measurement techniques for rehabilitation outcomes assessment", J Rehabil Med, 37(6), pp.339~345 (2005)
  30. Jette AM, "Creating a computer adaptive test version of the late-life function and disability instrument", J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci, 63(11), pp.1246~1256 (2008)
  31. Kopec JA, "Measuring functional outcomes in persons with back pain: A review of back-specific questionnaires", Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 25(24), pp.3110~3114 (2000)
  32. Kopec JA, "Functional disability scales for back pain", Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 20(17), pp.1943~1949 (1995)
  33. Kopec JA, "The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Measurement properties", Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 20(3), pp.341~352 (1995)
  34. Kopec JA, "The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Conceptualization and development", J Clin Epidemiol, 49(2), pp.151~161 (1996)
  35. Liang MH, "Measuring clinically important changes with patient-oriented questionnaires", Med Care, 40(4 Suppl), pp.II45~II51 (2002)
  36. McHorney CA, "Generic health measurement: Past accomplishments and a measurement paradigm for the 21st century", Ann Intern Med, 127(8 Pt 2), pp.743~750 (1997)
  37. McHorney CA, "Health status assessment methods for adults: Past accomplishments and future challenges", Annu Rev Public Health, 20, pp.309~335 (1999)
  38. McHorney CA, "Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning Scale (PF-10): II. Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods", J Clin Epidemiol, 50(4), pp.451~461 (1997)
  39. Müller U, "Back related outcome assessment instruments", Eur Spine J, 15(Suppl 1), pp.S25~S31 (2006)
  40. Page SJ, "Scaling of the revised Oswestry low back pain questionnaire", Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 83(11), pp.1579~1584 (2002)
  41. Roland M, "A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain", Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 8(2), pp.141~144 (1983)
  42. Shone CC, "Proteolytic cleavage of synthetic fragments of vesicle-associated membrane protein, isoform-2 by botulinum type B neurotoxin", Eur J Biochem, 217(3), pp.965~971 (1993)
  43. Stewart AL, "Conceptual challenges in linking physical activity and disability research", Am J Prev Med, 25(3 Suppl 2), pp.137~140 (2002)
  44. Stratford PW, "Health status measures: Strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores", Phys Ther, 76(10), pp.1109~1123 (1996)
  45. Taylor SJ, "Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain", Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 24(17), pp.1805~1812 (1999)
  46. Velozo CA, "Measurement qualities of a self-report and therapist-scored functional capacity instrument based on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles", J Occup Rehabil, 16(1), pp.109~122 (2006)
  47. Velozo CA, "The use of Rasch analysis to produce scale-free measurement of functional ability", Am J Occup Ther, 53(1), pp.83~90 (1999)
  48. Velozo CA, "Maintaining instrument quality while reducing items: Application of Rasch analysis to a self-report of visual function", J Outcome Meas, 4(3), pp.667~680 (2000)
  49. Ware JE Jr, "A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity", Med Care, 34(3), pp.220~233 (1996)
  50. Ware JE Jr, "Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact", Qual Life Res, 12(8), pp.935~952 (2003)
  51. Ware JE Jr, "The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection", Med Care, 30(6), pp.473~483 (1992)
  52. Weiss D., "Improving measurement quality and efficiency with adaptive testing", Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, pp.473~492 (1982)
  53. White LJ, "The use of Rasch measurement to improve the Oswestry classification scheme", Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 83(6), pp.822~831 (2002)
  54. Williams RM, "Functional Abilities Confidence Scale: A clinical measure for injured workers with acute low back pain", Phys Ther, 78(6), pp.624~634 (1998)
  55. Wright BD, "Observations are always ordinal; Measurements, however, must be interval", Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 70(12), pp.857~860 (1989)

관련 논문AI추천

A Comparative Study of Oswestry Back Pain Disability Questionnaire Versus Computer Adaptive Testing for Measuring Back Painchoi bongsam한국전문물리치료학회 · 한국전문물리치료학회지2013 · 제20권 제4호Selecting Common Items for Linking the Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire and a Short Form of Self-Reported Activity Measure for Low Back Painchoi bongsam한국전문물리치료학회 · 한국전문물리치료학회지2015 · 제22권 제3호The Use of Rasch Model in Developing a Short Form Based on Self-Reported Activity Measure for Low Back Painchoi bongsam한국전문물리치료학회 · 한국전문물리치료학회지2014 · 제21권 제4호Differential Item Functioning of the Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire Between Participants With and Without Low Back Pain최봉삼한국전문물리치료학회 · 한국전문물리치료학회지2014 · 제21권 제4호Keyform Analysis of Rasch Measurement Accessible to Clinicians in Rehabilitation Clinicschoi bongsam한국전문물리치료학회 · 한국전문물리치료학회지2014 · 제21권 제2호Responsiveness Comparisons of Self-Report Versus Therapist-Scored Functional Capacity for Workers With Low Back Pain박소연, choi bongsam한국전문물리치료학회 · 한국전문물리치료학회지2012 · 제19권 제3호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (13건)

정상인에서 5가지 체간 안정화 운동자세가 초음파 영상을 이용한 복부근 두께에 미치는 영향심재훈, 천승철, 강정현pp. 1-10바로 누운 자세에서 하지 등척성 수축이 정상 성인의 반대측 체간 근활성도에 미치는 영향박현주, 심선미, 최종덕, 오덕원pp. 11-19만성 편마비 환자의 발목에 적용한 능동운동을 동반한 관절가동술이 하지근력과 보행의 시공간적 변수에 미치는 영향안창만, 원종임pp. 20-30하승모근 등척성 운동방법에 따른 근두께 변화량 비교 및 초음파 영상의 신뢰도 연구김선엽, 장현정, 송우리pp. 31-39지지조건에 따른 시각되먹임이 뇌손상환자의 일어서기 과정 동안 자세조절에 미치는 영향신준범, 이재식pp. 40-50
원문 보기