OBJECTIVES: To develop and explore the feasibility of a functional staging system (defined as the process of assigning subjects, according to predetermined standards, into a set of hierarchic levels with regard to their functioning performance in mobility, daily activities, and cognitive skills) based on item response theory (IRT) methods using short forms of the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) and to compare the criterion validity and sensitivity of the IRT-based staging system to a non-IRT-based staging system developed for the FIM instrument. DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal cohort study of patients interviewed at hospital discharge and 1, 6, and 12 months after inpatient rehabilitation. SETTING: Follow-up interviews conducted in patients' homes. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 516 patients (47% men; sample mean age, 68.3y) at baseline (retention at the final follow-up, 65%) with neurologic, lower-extremity orthopedic, or complex medical conditions. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: AM-PAC basic mobility, daily activity, and applied cognitive activity stages; FIM executive control, mobility, activities of daily living, and sphincter stages. Stages refer to the hierarchic levels assigned to patients' functioning performances. RESULTS: We were able to define IRT-based staging definitions and create meaningful cut scores based on the 3 AM-PAC short forms. The IRT stages correlated as well or better to the criterion items than the FIM stages. Both the IRT-based stages and the FIM stages were sensitive to changes throughout the 6-month follow-up period. The FIM stages were more sensitive in detecting changes between baseline and 1-month follow-up visits. The AM-PAC stages were more discriminant in the follow-up visits. CONCLUSIONS: An IRT-based staging approach appeared feasible and effective in classifying patients throughout long-term follow-up. Although these stages were developed from short forms, this staging methodology could also be applied to improve the meaning of scores generated from IRT-based computerized adaptive testing in future work.
OBJECTIVES: To develop and explore the feasibility of a functional staging system (defined as the process of assigning subjects, according to predetermined standards, into a set of hierarchic levels with regard to their functioning performance in mobility, daily activities, and cognitive skills) based on item response theory (IRT) methods using short forms of the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) and to compare the criterion validity and sensitivity of the IRT-based staging system to a non-IRT-based staging system developed for the FIM instrument. DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal cohort study of patients interviewed at hospital discharge and 1, 6, and 12 months after inpatient rehabilitation. SETTING: Follow-up interviews conducted in patients' homes. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 516 patients (47% men; sample mean age, 68.3y) at baseline (retention at the final follow-up, 65%) with neurologic, lower-extremity orthopedic, or complex medical conditions. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: AM-PAC basic mobility, daily activity, and applied cognitive activity stages; FIM executive control, mobility, activities of daily living, and sphincter stages. Stages refer to the hierarchic levels assigned to patients' functioning performances. RESULTS: We were able to define IRT-based staging definitions and create meaningful cut scores based on the 3 AM-PAC short forms. The IRT stages correlated as well or better to the criterion items than the FIM stages. Both the IRT-based stages and the FIM stages were sensitive to changes throughout the 6-month follow-up period. The FIM stages were more sensitive in detecting changes between baseline and 1-month follow-up visits. The AM-PAC stages were more discriminant in the follow-up visits. CONCLUSIONS: An IRT-based staging approach appeared feasible and effective in classifying patients throughout long-term follow-up. Although these stages were developed from short forms, this staging methodology could also be applied to improve the meaning of scores generated from IRT-based computerized adaptive testing in future work.
Authors: Stephen M Haley; Hilary Siebens; Wendy J Coster; Wei Tao; Randie M Black-Schaffer; Barbara Gandek; Samuel J Sinclair; Pengsheng Ni Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Wendy J Coster; Stephen M Haley; Larry H Ludlow; Patricia L Andres; Peng Sheng Ni Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Joan Stelmack; Janet P Szlyk; Thomas Stelmack; Judith Babcock-Parziale; Paulette Demers-Turco; R Tracy Williams; Robert W Massof Journal: J Rehabil Res Dev Date: 2004-03
Authors: Stephen M Haley; Patricia L Andres; Wendy J Coster; Mark Kosinski; Pengsheng Ni; Alan M Jette Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Wendy J Coster; Stephen M Haley; Patricia L Andres; Larry H Ludlow; Tamara L Y Bond; Peng-Sheng Ni Journal: Med Care Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Stephen M Haley; Pengsheng Ni; Jin-Shei Lai; Feng Tian; Wendy J Coster; Alan M Jette; Donald Straub; David Cella Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Elizabeth E Marfeo; Pengsheng Ni; Leighton Chan; Elizabeth K Rasch; Christine M McDonough; Diane E Brandt; Kara Bogusz; Alan M Jette Journal: J Rehabil Med Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 2.912
Authors: Margaret G Stineman; John T Henry-Sánchez; Jibby E Kurichi; Qiang Pan; Dawei Xie; Debra Saliba; Zi Zhang; Joel E Streim Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Andrea L Cheville; Naveen S Murthy; Jeffrey R Basford; Peter S Rose; Kenny Tran; Thomas P Pittelkow; Michael D Ringler Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2015-10-03 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Andrea L Cheville; Lori Rhudy; Jeffrey R Basford; Joan M Griffin; Ann Marie Flores Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Andrea L Cheville; Jeffrey R Basford; Ian Parney; Ping Yang; Felix E Diehn Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Andrea L Cheville; Kathleen J Yost; Dirk R Larson; Katiuska Dos Santos; Megan M O'Byrne; Megan T Chang; Terry M Therneau; Felix E Diehn; Ping Yang Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2012-02-25 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Tamra Keeney; Mary Slavin; Pamela Kisala; Pengsheng Ni; Allen W Heinemann; Susan Charlifue; Denise C Fyffe; Ralph J Marino; Leslie R Morse; Lynn A Worobey; Denise Tate; David Rosenblum; Ross Zafonte; David Tulsky; Alan M Jette Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2018-03-31 Impact factor: 3.966