PURPOSE: Computerized adaptive testing (CAT) item banks may need to be updated, but before new items can be added, they must be linked to the previous CAT. The purpose of this study was to evaluate 41 pretest items prior to including them into an operational CAT. METHODS: We recruited 6,882 patients with spine, lower extremity, upper extremity, and nonorthopedic impairments who received outpatient rehabilitation in one of 147 clinics across 13 states of the USA. Forty-one new Daily Activity (DA) items were administered along with the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care Daily Activity CAT (DA-CAT-1) in five separate waves. We compared the scoring consistency with the full item bank, test information function (TIF), person standard errors (SEs), and content range of the DA-CAT-1 to the new CAT (DA-CAT-2) with the pretest items by real data simulations. RESULTS: We retained 29 of the 41 pretest items. Scores from the DA-CAT-2 were more consistent (ICC = 0.90 versus 0.96) than DA-CAT-1 when compared with the full item bank. TIF and person SEs were improved for persons with higher levels of DA functioning, and ceiling effects were reduced from 16.1% to 6.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Item response theory and online calibration methods were valuable in improving the DA-CAT.
PURPOSE: Computerized adaptive testing (CAT) item banks may need to be updated, but before new items can be added, they must be linked to the previous CAT. The purpose of this study was to evaluate 41 pretest items prior to including them into an operational CAT. METHODS: We recruited 6,882 patients with spine, lower extremity, upper extremity, and nonorthopedic impairments who received outpatient rehabilitation in one of 147 clinics across 13 states of the USA. Forty-one new Daily Activity (DA) items were administered along with the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care Daily Activity CAT (DA-CAT-1) in five separate waves. We compared the scoring consistency with the full item bank, test information function (TIF), person standard errors (SEs), and content range of the DA-CAT-1 to the new CAT (DA-CAT-2) with the pretest items by real data simulations. RESULTS: We retained 29 of the 41 pretest items. Scores from the DA-CAT-2 were more consistent (ICC = 0.90 versus 0.96) than DA-CAT-1 when compared with the full item bank. TIF and person SEs were improved for persons with higher levels of DA functioning, and ceiling effects were reduced from 16.1% to 6.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Item response theory and online calibration methods were valuable in improving the DA-CAT.
Authors: Stephen M Haley; Pengsheng Ni; Ronald K Hambleton; Mary D Slavin; Alan M Jette Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-07-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Jin-Shei Lai; David Cella; Kelly Dineen; Rita Bode; Jamie Von Roenn; Richard C Gershon; Daniel Shevrin Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Stephen M Haley; Wendy J Coster; Patricia L Andres; Mark Kosinski; Pengsheng Ni 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: Eva K Fenwick; Bao Sheng Loe; Jyoti Khadka; Ryan E K Man; Gwyn Rees; Ecosse L Lamoureux Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-11-09 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Elizabeth E Marfeo; Pengsheng Ni; Stephen M Haley; Kara Bogusz; Mark Meterko; Christine M McDonough; Leighton Chan; Elizabeth K Rasch; Diane E Brandt; Alan M Jette Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2013-03-29 Impact factor: 3.966
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: M Elizabeth Sandel; Alan M Jette; Jed Appelman; Joseph Terdiman; Marian TeSelle; Richard L Delmonico; Hua Wang; Michelle Camicia; Elizabeth K Rasch; Diane E Brandt; Leighton Chan Journal: PM R Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 2.298