Measuring global physical health in children with cerebral palsy: illustration of a multidimensional bi-factor model and computerized adaptive testing
- 242 Downloads
The purposes of this study were to apply a bi-factor model for the determination of test dimensionality and a multidimensional CAT using computer simulations of real data for the assessment of a new global physical health measure for children with cerebral palsy (CP).
Parent respondents of 306 children with cerebral palsy were recruited from four pediatric rehabilitation hospitals and outpatient clinics. We compared confirmatory factor analysis results across four models: (1) one-factor unidimensional; (2) two-factor multidimensional (MIRT); (3) bi-factor MIRT with fixed slopes; and (4) bi-factor MIRT with varied slopes. We tested whether the general and content (fatigue and pain) person score estimates could discriminate across severity and types of CP, and whether score estimates from a simulated CAT were similar to estimates based on the total item bank, and whether they correlated as expected with external measures.
Confirmatory factor analysis suggested separate pain and fatigue sub-factors; all 37 items were retained in the analyses. From the bi-factor MIRT model with fixed slopes, the full item bank scores discriminated across levels of severity and types of CP, and compared favorably to external instruments. CAT scores based on 10- and 15-item versions accurately captured the global physical health scores.
The bi-factor MIRT CAT application, especially the 10- and 15-item versions, yielded accurate global physical health scores that discriminated across known severity groups and types of CP, and correlated as expected with concurrent measures. The CATs have potential for collecting complex data on the physical health of children with CP in an efficient manner.
KeywordsBi-factor model Computerized adaptive testing Item response theory
Supported by the Shriners Hospital for Children Foundation (Grant # 8957) and an Independent Scientist award to Dr. Haley (National Center on Medical Rehabilitation Research/NICHD/NIH, grant # K02 HD45354-01A1).
- 6.Varni, J., Burwinkle, T., Berrin, S., Sherman, S., Artavia, K., Malcarne, V., et al. (2006). The PedsQL in pediatric cerebral palsy: Reliability, validity, and sensitivity of the Generic Core Scales and Cerebral Palsy Module. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 48, 442–449. doi: 10.1017/S001216220600096X.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Narayanan, U., Fehlings, D., Weir, S., Knights, S., & Kiran, S. (2006). Initial development and validation of the Caregiver Priorities and Child Health Index of Life with Disabilities (CPCHILD). Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 48, 804–812. doi: 10.1017/S0012162206001745.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.White-Koning, M., Arnaud, C., Bourdet-Lubere, S., Bazex, H., Colver, A. F., & Grandjean, H. (2005). Subjective quality of life in children with intellectual impairment—how can it be assessed? Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 47, 281–285. doi: 10.1017/S0012162205000526.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Landgraf, J., Abetz, L., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (1996). The CHQ: A user’s manual (1st ed.). Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.Google Scholar
- 18.Hays, R., & Lipscomb, J. (2007). Next steps for use of item response theory in the assessment of health outcomes. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 195–199. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9175-7.
- 20.Wainer, H. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 21.Hambleton, R. K. (1989) Principles and selected applications of Item Response Theory. In Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 147–200). New York: American Council on Education-Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- 23.Haley, S., Ni, P., Ludlow, L., & Fragala-Pinkham, M. (2006). Measurement precision and efficiency of multidimensional computer adaptive testing of physical functioning using the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 87, 1223–1229. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.05.018.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Reeve, B., Hays, R., Bjorner, J., Cook, K., Crane, P., Teresi, J., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(5, Suppl 1), S22–S31. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.04.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Tucker, C., Haley, S., Watson, K., Dumas, H., Fragala-Pinkham, M., Gorton, G., et al. (2008). Physical function for children and youth with cerebral palsy: Item bank development for computer adaptive testing. Journal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine, 1, 237–244.Google Scholar
- 28.Dumas, H., Watson, K., Fragala-Pinkham, M., Haley, S., Bilodeau, N., Montpetit, K., et al. (2008). Cognitive interviewing to elicit parent feedback of test items for assessing physical function in children with cerebral palsy. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 20, 356–362. doi: 10.1097/PEP.0b013e31818ac500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Daltroy, L., Liang, M., Fossel, A., & Goldberg, M. (1998). The POSNA Pediatric Musculoskeletal Functional Health Questionnaire: Report on reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics, 18, 561–571. doi: 10.1097/00004694-199809000-00001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Muthen, B., & Muthen, L. (2001). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthen and Muthen.Google Scholar
- 35.Drasgow, F., Levine, M., & Williams, E. (1985). Appropriateness measurement with polytomous item response models and standardized indices. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 67–86.Google Scholar
- 36.Ackerman, T., Hombo, C., & Neustel, S. (2002). Evaluating indices used to assess the goodness-of-fit of the compensatory multidimensional item response theory model. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
- 37.DeMars, C. (2005). Scoring subscales using multidimensional item response theory models. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- 43.Coster, W., Haley, S., Ni, P., Dumas, H., & Fragala-Pinkham, M. (2008). Assessing self-care and social function using a computer adaptive testing version of the pediatric evaluation of disability inventory. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89, 622–629. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.09.053.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.Haley, S., Raczek, A., Coster, W., Dumas, H., & Fragala-Pinkham, M. (2005). Assessing mobility in children using a computer adaptive testing version of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI). Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86, 932–939. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.10.032.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar