STUDY DESIGN: We have conducted an outcome instrument validation study. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop a computerized adaptive test (CAT) to measure 5 domains of health-related quality of life (HRQL) and assess its feasibility, reliability, validity, and efficiency. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Kopec and colleagues have recently developed item response theory based item banks for 5 domains of HRQL relevant to back pain and suitable for CAT applications. The domains are Daily Activities (DAILY), Walking (WALK), Handling Objects (HAND), Pain or Discomfort (PAIN), and Feelings (FEEL). METHODS: An adaptive algorithm was implemented in a web-based questionnaire administration system. The questionnaire included CAT-5D-QOL (5 scales), Modified Oswestry Disability Index (MODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), SF-36 Health Survey, and standard clinical and demographic information. Participants were outpatients treated for mechanical back pain at a referral center in Vancouver, Canada. RESULTS: A total of 215 patients completed the questionnaire and 84 completed a retest. On average, patients answered 5.2 items per CAT-5D-QOL scale. Reliability ranged from 0.83 (FEEL) to 0.92 (PAIN) and was 0.92 for the MODI, RMDQ, and Physical Component Summary (PCS-36). The ceiling effect was 0.5% for PAIN compared with 2% for MODI and 5% for RMQ. The CAT-5D-QOL scales correlated as anticipated with other measures of HRQL and discriminated well according to the level of satisfaction with current symptoms, duration of the last episode, sciatica, and disability compensation. The average relative discrimination index was 0.87 for PAIN, 0.67 for DAILY and 0.62 for WALK, compared with 0.89 for MODI, 0.80 for RMDQ, and 0.59 for PCS-36. CONCLUSION: The CAT-5D-QOL is feasible, reliable, valid, and efficient in patients with back pain. This methodology can be recommended for use in back pain research and should improve outcome assessment, facilitate comparisons across studies, and reduce patient burden.
STUDY DESIGN: We have conducted an outcome instrument validation study. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop a computerized adaptive test (CAT) to measure 5 domains of health-related quality of life (HRQL) and assess its feasibility, reliability, validity, and efficiency. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Kopec and colleagues have recently developed item response theory based item banks for 5 domains of HRQL relevant to back pain and suitable for CAT applications. The domains are Daily Activities (DAILY), Walking (WALK), Handling Objects (HAND), Pain or Discomfort (PAIN), and Feelings (FEEL). METHODS: An adaptive algorithm was implemented in a web-based questionnaire administration system. The questionnaire included CAT-5D-QOL (5 scales), Modified Oswestry Disability Index (MODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), SF-36 Health Survey, and standard clinical and demographic information. Participants were outpatients treated for mechanical back pain at a referral center in Vancouver, Canada. RESULTS: A total of 215 patients completed the questionnaire and 84 completed a retest. On average, patients answered 5.2 items per CAT-5D-QOL scale. Reliability ranged from 0.83 (FEEL) to 0.92 (PAIN) and was 0.92 for the MODI, RMDQ, and Physical Component Summary (PCS-36). The ceiling effect was 0.5% for PAIN compared with 2% for MODI and 5% for RMQ. The CAT-5D-QOL scales correlated as anticipated with other measures of HRQL and discriminated well according to the level of satisfaction with current symptoms, duration of the last episode, sciatica, and disability compensation. The average relative discrimination index was 0.87 for PAIN, 0.67 for DAILY and 0.62 for WALK, compared with 0.89 for MODI, 0.80 for RMDQ, and 0.59 for PCS-36. CONCLUSION: The CAT-5D-QOL is feasible, reliable, valid, and efficient in patients with back pain. This methodology can be recommended for use in back pain research and should improve outcome assessment, facilitate comparisons across studies, and reduce patient burden.
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: Jacek A Kopec; Eric C Sayre; Aileen M Davis; Elizabeth M Badley; Michal Abrahamowicz; Jacques Pouchot; Lesley Sherlock; John M Esdaile Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Logan Trenaman; Annelies Boonen; Francis Guillemin; Mickael Hiligsmann; Alison Hoens; Carlo Marra; Will Taylor; Jennifer Barton; Peter Tugwell; George Wells; Nick Bansback Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Donald S Garbuz; Michael Tanzer; Nelson V Greidanus; Bassam A Masri; Clive P Duncan Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2009-08-21 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Jeanne A Teresi; Katja Ocepek-Welikson; Karon F Cook; Marjorie Kleinman; Mildred Ramirez; M Carrington Reid; Albert Siu Journal: Psychol Test Assess Model Date: 2016
Authors: Pablo Rebollo; Ignacio Castejón; Jesús Cuervo; Guillermo Villa; Eduardo García-Cueto; Helena Díaz-Cuervo; Pilar C Zardaín; José Muñiz; Jordi Alonso Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Rachelle Buchbinder; Roy Batterham; Gerald Elsworth; Clermont E Dionne; Emma Irvin; Richard H Osborne Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2011-09-20 Impact factor: 5.156