OBJECTIVE: To assess score agreement, validity, precision, and response burden of a prototype computerized adaptive testing (CAT) version of the Mobility Functional Skills Scale (Mob-CAT) of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) as compared with the full 59-item version (Mob-59). DESIGN: Computer simulation analysis of cross-sectional and longitudinal retrospective data; and cross-sectional prospective study. SETTING: Pediatric rehabilitation hospital, including inpatient acute rehabilitation, day school program, outpatient clinics, community-based day care, preschool, and children's homes. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred sixty-nine children with disabilities and 412 children with no disabilities (analytic sample); 41 children without disabilities and 39 with disabilities (cross-validation sample). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Summary scores from a prototype Mob-CAT application and versions using 15-, 10-, and 5-item stopping rules; scores from the Mob-59; and number of items and time (in seconds) to administer assessments. RESULTS: Mob-CAT scores from both computer simulations (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] range, .94-.99) and field administrations (ICC=.98) were in high agreement with scores from the Mob-59. Using computer simulations of retrospective data, discriminant validity, and sensitivity to change of the Mob-CAT closely approximated that of the Mob-59, especially when using the 15- and 10-item stopping rule versions of the Mob-CAT. The Mob-CAT used no more than 15% of the items for any single administration, and required 20% of the time needed to administer the Mob-59. CONCLUSIONS: Comparable score estimates for the PEDI mobility scale can be obtained from CAT administrations, with losses in validity and precision for shorter forms, but with a considerable reduction in administration time.
OBJECTIVE: To assess score agreement, validity, precision, and response burden of a prototype computerized adaptive testing (CAT) version of the Mobility Functional Skills Scale (Mob-CAT) of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) as compared with the full 59-item version (Mob-59). DESIGN: Computer simulation analysis of cross-sectional and longitudinal retrospective data; and cross-sectional prospective study. SETTING: Pediatric rehabilitation hospital, including inpatient acute rehabilitation, day school program, outpatient clinics, community-based day care, preschool, and children's homes. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred sixty-nine children with disabilities and 412 children with no disabilities (analytic sample); 41 children without disabilities and 39 with disabilities (cross-validation sample). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Summary scores from a prototype Mob-CAT application and versions using 15-, 10-, and 5-item stopping rules; scores from the Mob-59; and number of items and time (in seconds) to administer assessments. RESULTS:Mob-CAT scores from both computer simulations (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] range, .94-.99) and field administrations (ICC=.98) were in high agreement with scores from the Mob-59. Using computer simulations of retrospective data, discriminant validity, and sensitivity to change of the Mob-CAT closely approximated that of the Mob-59, especially when using the 15- and 10-item stopping rule versions of the Mob-CAT. The Mob-CAT used no more than 15% of the items for any single administration, and required 20% of the time needed to administer the Mob-59. CONCLUSIONS: Comparable score estimates for the PEDI mobility scale can be obtained from CAT administrations, with losses in validity and precision for shorter forms, but with a considerable reduction in administration time.
Authors: Stephen M Haley; Wendy J Coster; Helene M Dumas; Maria A Fragala-Pinkham; Jessica Kramer; Pengsheng Ni; Feng Tian; Ying-Chia Kao; Rich Moed; Larry H Ludlow Journal: Dev Med Child Neurol Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 5.449
Authors: Diane M Turner-Bowker; Renee N Saris-Baglama; Michael A Derosa; Christine A Paulsen; Christopher P Bransfield Journal: Patient Date: 2009-12-01 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Diane M Turner-Bowker; Renee N Saris-Baglama; Michael A Derosa; Christine A Paulsen; Christopher P Bransfield Journal: Patient Date: 2009-12-01 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Helene M Dumas; Maria A Fragala-Pinkham; Stephen M Haley; Pengsheng Ni; Wendy Coster; Jessica M Kramer; Ying-Chia Kao; Richard Moed; Larry H Ludlow Journal: Disabil Rehabil Date: 2011-10-12 Impact factor: 3.033
Authors: Stephen M Haley; Wendy I Coster; Ying-Chia Kao; Helene M Dumas; Maria A Fragala-Pinkham; Jessica M Kramer; Larry H Ludlow; Richard Moed Journal: Pediatr Phys Ther Date: 2010 Impact factor: 3.049
Authors: Stephen M Haley; Maria A Fragala-Pinkham; Helene M Dumas; Pengsheng Ni; George E Gorton; Kyle Watson; Kathleen Montpetit; Nathalie Bilodeau; Ronald K Hambleton; Carole A Tucker Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2009-05-07