Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Advances in Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes: Use of Item Response Theory and Computer Adaptive Tests

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Basic Methods Handbook for Clinical Orthopaedic Research

  • 2296 Accesses

Abstract

Well-designed patient-reported outcomes are capable of measuring information important to both patients and clinicians. Including these outcomes in research reports provides a consistent, comparable outcome in research studies. However, classic measures of a reasonable fixed-length survey only measure part of the spectrum of function, and more comprehensive measures of function are too burdensome to complete regularly. Modern measurement techniques, including item response theory and computer adaptive tests, can drastically reduce the number of items to administer while improving the overall precision of the measurement. The following chapter provides the basic information needed to select and use these modern measurement techniques. Considering the rapid development of measures, the reader will need to review all of the available options.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Beleckas CM, Padovano A, Guattery J, Chamberlain AM, Keener JD, Calfee RP. Performance of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) upper extremity (UE) versus physical function (PF) computer adaptive tests (CATs) in upper extremity clinics. J Hand Surg Am. 2017;42:867–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.06.012.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Bernholt D, Wright RW, Matava MJ, Brophy RH, Bogunovic L, Smith MV. Patient reported outcomes measurement information system scores are responsive to early changes in patient outcomes following arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Arthroscopy. 2018;34:1113–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2017.10.047.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bruce B, Fries J, Lingala B, Hussain YN, Krishnan E. Development and assessment of floor and ceiling items for the PROMIS physical function item bank. Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15:R144. https://doi.org/10.1186/ar4327.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Bruce B, Fries JF, Ambrosini D, Lingala B, Gandek B, Rose M, Ware JE Jr. Better assessment of physical function: item improvement is neglected but essential. Arthritis Res Ther. 2009;11:R191. https://doi.org/10.1186/ar2890.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Cella D, Chang CH. A discussion of item response theory and its applications in health status assessment. Med Care. 2000;38:II66–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cella D, et al. The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:1179–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. DeWalt DA, Rothrock N, Yount S, Stone AA, PROMIS Cooperative Group. Evaluation of item candidates: the PROMIS qualitative item review. Med Care. 2007;45:S12–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000254567.79743.e2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Fries JF, Bruce B, Cella D. The promise of PROMIS: using item response theory to improve assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005;23:S53–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Haley SM, Ni P, Hambleton RK, Slavin MD, Jette AM. Computer adaptive testing improved accuracy and precision of scores over random item selection in a physical functioning item bank. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1174–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.02.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Haley SM, Ni P, Jette AM, Tao W, Moed R, Meyers D, Ludlow LH. Replenishing a computerized adaptive test of patient-reported daily activity functioning. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:461–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9463-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Haley SM, Ni P, Ludlow LH, Fragala-Pinkham MA. Measurement precision and efficiency of multidimensional computer adaptive testing of physical functioning using the pediatric evaluation of disability inventory. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:1223–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2006.05.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Haskell A, Kim T. Implementation of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system data collection in a private orthopaedic surgery practice. Foot Ankle Int. 2018;39:517–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100717753967.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care. 2000;38:II28–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jette AM, Haley SM. Contemporary measurement techniques for rehabilitation outcomes assessment. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37:339–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/16501970500302793.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee AC, Driban JB, Price LL, Harvey WF, Rodday AM, Wang C. Responsiveness and minimally important differences for 4 patient-reported outcomes measurement information system short forms: physical function, pain interference, depression, and anxiety in knee osteoarthritis. J Pain. 2017;18:1096–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2017.05.001.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Liu H, Cella D, Gershon R, Shen J, Morales LS, Riley W, Hays RD. Representativeness of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system internet panel. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:1169–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.021.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. McHorney CA, Cohen AS. Equating health status measures with item response theory: illustrations with functional status items. Med Care. 2000;38:II43–59.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Minoughan CE, Schumaier AP, Fritch JL, Grawe BM. Correlation of PROMIS physical function upper extremity computer adaptive test with American shoulder and elbow surgeons shoulder assessment form and simple shoulder test in patients with shoulder arthritis. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2018;27:585–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.10.036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rose M, Bjorner JB, Gandek B, Bruce B, Fries JF, Ware JE Jr. The PROMIS physical function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:516–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.024.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Tao W, Haley SM, Coster WJ, Ni P, Jette AM. An exploratory analysis of functional staging using an item response theory approach. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:1046–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.036.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Zdziarski-Horodyski L, et al. An integrated-delivery-of-care approach to improve patient reported physical function and mental wellbeing after orthopaedic trauma: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2018;19:32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2430-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Physical Therapy and Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Andrew D. Lynch, Adam J. Popchak & James J. Irrgang

Authors
  1. Andrew D. Lynch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adam J. Popchak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James J. Irrgang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew D. Lynch .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. UPMC Rooney Sports Complex, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Volker Musahl

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Jón Karlsson

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kantonsspital Baselland (Bruderholz, Laufen und Liestal), Bruderholz, Switzerland

    Michael T. Hirschmann

  4. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Olufemi R. Ayeni

  5. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

    Robert G. Marx

  6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA

    Jason L. Koh

  7. Institute for Medical Science in Sports, Osaka Health Science University, Osaka, Japan

    Norimasa Nakamura

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 ISAKOS

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lynch, A.D., Popchak, A.J., Irrgang, J.J. (2019). Advances in Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes: Use of Item Response Theory and Computer Adaptive Tests. In: Musahl, V., et al. Basic Methods Handbook for Clinical Orthopaedic Research. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-58253-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-58254-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation