David J Weiss1, Chun Wang2, Jeffrey R Basford3, King Yiu Suen4, Isabella M Alvarado3, Andrea Cheville3. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Electronic address: djweiss@umn.edu. 2. College of Education, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 3. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States. 4. Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a multidimensional computerized adaptive test, the Functional Assessment in Acute Care Multidimensional Computerized Adaptive Test (FAMCAT), could be administered to hospitalized patients via a tablet computer rather than being orally administered by an interviewer. DESIGN: A randomized comparison of the responses of hospitalized patients to interviewer vs tablet delivery of the FAMCAT and its assessment of applied cognition, daily activity, and basic mobility. SETTING: Two quaternary teaching hospitals in the Upper Midwest. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 300 patients (127 men, 165 women), average age 61.2 (range, 18-97) hospitalized on medical services or rehospitalized on surgical services were randomly assigned to either a tablet (150) or an interview (150) group. INTERVENTION: Electronic tablet vs interview. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Item response theory point estimates of the FAMCAT latent scales, their psychometric standard errors, number of items administered per domain, the determinant (an indicator of overall precision of the latent trait vector), as well as the time that patients required to complete their FAMCAT sessions. RESULTS: Of the 300 patients, 292 completed their assessments. The assessments of 4 individuals in each group was interrupted by clinical care and were not included in the analyses. A significant (P=.009) mode effect (ie, interview vs tablet) was identified when all outcome variables were considered simultaneously. However, the only outcome that was affected by the administration mode was test duration: tablet administration reduced the roughly 6-minute test time required by both approaches by only 20 seconds, which, though statistically significant, was clinically insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: The results of a FAMCAT assessment, at least for this cohort of hospitalized patients, are independent of administration via tablet computer or interview.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a multidimensional computerized adaptive test, the Functional Assessment in Acute Care Multidimensional Computerized Adaptive Test (FAMCAT), could be administered to hospitalized patients via a tablet computer rather than being orally administered by an interviewer. DESIGN: A randomized comparison of the responses of hospitalized patients to interviewer vs tablet delivery of the FAMCAT and its assessment of applied cognition, daily activity, and basic mobility. SETTING: Two quaternary teaching hospitals in the Upper Midwest. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 300 patients (127 men, 165 women), average age 61.2 (range, 18-97) hospitalized on medical services or rehospitalized on surgical services were randomly assigned to either a tablet (150) or an interview (150) group. INTERVENTION: Electronic tablet vs interview. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Item response theory point estimates of the FAMCAT latent scales, their psychometric standard errors, number of items administered per domain, the determinant (an indicator of overall precision of the latent trait vector), as well as the time that patients required to complete their FAMCAT sessions. RESULTS: Of the 300 patients, 292 completed their assessments. The assessments of 4 individuals in each group was interrupted by clinical care and were not included in the analyses. A significant (P=.009) mode effect (ie, interview vs tablet) was identified when all outcome variables were considered simultaneously. However, the only outcome that was affected by the administration mode was test duration: tablet administration reduced the roughly 6-minute test time required by both approaches by only 20 seconds, which, though statistically significant, was clinically insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: The results of a FAMCAT assessment, at least for this cohort of hospitalized patients, are independent of administration via tablet computer or interview.
Authors: JoAnn Maklebust; Mary Y Sieggreen; Deborah Sidor; Mary A Gerlach; Carole Bauer; Carol Anderson Journal: Ostomy Wound Manage Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 2.629
Authors: Markus Schuler; Freya Trautmann; Mirko Radloff; Leopold Hentschel; Thomas Petzold; Maria Eberlein-Gonska; Gerhard Ehninger; Jochen Schmitt Journal: Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes Date: 2017-04-01
Authors: Stephen Joel Coons; Chad J Gwaltney; Ron D Hays; J Jason Lundy; Jeff A Sloan; Dennis A Revicki; William R Lenderking; David Cella; Ethan Basch Journal: Value Health Date: 2008-11-11 Impact factor: 5.725
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: Tait D Shanafelt; Lotte N Dyrbye; Christine Sinsky; Omar Hasan; Daniel Satele; Jeff Sloan; Colin P West Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Martine H P Crins; Philip J van der Wees; Thomas Klausch; Simone A van Dulmen; Leo D Roorda; Caroline B Terwee Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-12 Impact factor: 3.240