TY - JOUR
T1 - Detecting functional change in response to exercise in knee osteoarthritis
T2 - A comparison of two computerized adaptive tests
AU - Chang, Feng Hang
AU - Jette, Alan M.
AU - Slavin, Mary D.
AU - Baker, Kristin
AU - Ni, Pengsheng
AU - Keysor, Julie J.
N1 - Funding Information:
Two IRT/CAT measures are available for use in OA, one is disease-specific and one is generic. The Osteoarthritis Computerized Adaptive Test (OA-CAT) is an IRT/CAT measure developed specifically for use in OA [16, 17]. Disease-specific measures contain items, responses, or other aspects of the measurement that are developed specifically for the disease or condition being measured. In contrast, generic measures are designed to assess outcomes with the expectation that the measurement models can be applied across populations without regard to the patient’s specific condition [18]. The Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®), funded by the National Institutes of Health, was designed as a generic measure to promote comparability across studies and clinical diagnoses [19]. Several PROMIS® domains, including physical functioning [19], can be used to assess outcomes in persons with osteoarthritis.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 The Author(s).
PY - 2018/1/23
Y1 - 2018/1/23
N2 - Background: The intent of this study was to examine and compare the ability to detect change of two patient reported outcome (PRO) instruments that use a computerized adaptive test (CAT) approach to measurement. The Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) Physical Function scale is a generic PRO, while the Osteoarthritis Computerized Adaptive Test (OA-CAT) is an osteoarthritis-specific PRO. Methods: This descriptive, longitudinal study was conducted in a community setting, involving individuals from the greater Boston area. Inclusion criteria: age > 50, self-reported doctor-diagnosed knee osteoarthritis (OA) and knee pain. The PROMIS® Physical Function CAT and OA-CAT Functional Difficulty scale were administered at baseline and at the conclusion of a 6-week exercise program. Effect sizes (ES) were calculated for both measures, and bootstrap methods were used to construct confidence intervals and to test for significant ES differences between the measures. Results: The OA-CAT Functional Difficulty scale achieved an ES of 0.62 (0.43, 0.87) compared to the PROMIS® Physical Function CAT ES of 0.42 (0.24, 0.63). ES estimates for the two CAT measures were not statistically different. Conclusions: The condition-specific OA-CAT and generic PROMIS® Physical Function CAT both demonstrated the ability to detect change in function. While the OA-CAT scale showed larger effect size, no statistically significant difference was found in the effect size estimates for the generic and condition-specific CATs. Both CATs have potential for use in arthritis research. Trial registration: This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 6/21/11 (Identifier NCT01394874)
AB - Background: The intent of this study was to examine and compare the ability to detect change of two patient reported outcome (PRO) instruments that use a computerized adaptive test (CAT) approach to measurement. The Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) Physical Function scale is a generic PRO, while the Osteoarthritis Computerized Adaptive Test (OA-CAT) is an osteoarthritis-specific PRO. Methods: This descriptive, longitudinal study was conducted in a community setting, involving individuals from the greater Boston area. Inclusion criteria: age > 50, self-reported doctor-diagnosed knee osteoarthritis (OA) and knee pain. The PROMIS® Physical Function CAT and OA-CAT Functional Difficulty scale were administered at baseline and at the conclusion of a 6-week exercise program. Effect sizes (ES) were calculated for both measures, and bootstrap methods were used to construct confidence intervals and to test for significant ES differences between the measures. Results: The OA-CAT Functional Difficulty scale achieved an ES of 0.62 (0.43, 0.87) compared to the PROMIS® Physical Function CAT ES of 0.42 (0.24, 0.63). ES estimates for the two CAT measures were not statistically different. Conclusions: The condition-specific OA-CAT and generic PROMIS® Physical Function CAT both demonstrated the ability to detect change in function. While the OA-CAT scale showed larger effect size, no statistically significant difference was found in the effect size estimates for the generic and condition-specific CATs. Both CATs have potential for use in arthritis research. Trial registration: This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 6/21/11 (Identifier NCT01394874)
KW - Computerized adaptive testing
KW - Measurement
KW - Osteoarthritis
KW - Patient reported outcomes
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85043516156&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85043516156&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s12891-018-1942-9
DO - 10.1186/s12891-018-1942-9
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85043516156
SN - 1471-2474
VL - 19
JO - BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
JF - BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
IS - 1
M1 - 1942
ER -