Single-item screens identified patients with elevated levels of depressive and somatization symptoms in outpatient physical therapy
- 167 Downloads
Develop efficient and accurate screening tools to identify elevated levels of depressive or somatization symptoms, which can adversely affect functional status outcomes.
We conducted a secondary analysis of prospectively collected depressive and somatization symptoms (Symptom Checklist 90-Revised) data from 10,920 patients receiving outpatient physical therapy for a variety of neuromusculoskeletal diagnoses. Item response theory methods were used to analyze data, with particular emphasis on differential item functioning among groups of patients, and to identify potential screening items. Screening item accuracy for identifying patients with elevated symptoms was assessed with receiver-operating characteristic analyses.
Seven items for depressive and 10 items for somatization symptoms represented unidimensional scales. Differential item functioning was negligible for demographic and clinical variables known to affect functional status outcomes. Items providing maximum information at the 88th percentile for depressive and 77th percentile for somatization scales accurately dichotomized patients into elevated versus not elevated symptom levels.
Lack of differential item functioning suggested depressive and somatization screening could be useful in routine clinical practice and allowed the development of single-item screens that accurately identified patients with elevated depressive or somatization symptoms. Item response theory-based single-item screens may facilitate evaluation and management of heterogeneous populations receiving outpatient physical therapy.
KeywordsItem response theory Depression Somatization Rehabilitation Screening
- 3.Deutscher, D., Horn, S. D., Dickstein, R., Hart, D. L., Smout, R. J., Gutvirtz, M., et al. (2009). Associations between treatment processes, patient characteristics, and outcomes in outpatient physical therapy practice. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 90, 1349–1363.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Mannion AF, Junge A, Taimela S, Muntener M, Lorenzo K, Dvorak J. Active therapy for chronic low back pain: part 3. Factors influencing self-rated disability and its change following therapy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Apr 15;26(8):920–929.Google Scholar
- 17.van der Linden, W., & Hambleton, R. K. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
- 19.Millsap, R. E., & Everson, H. T. (1993). Methodology review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 287–334.Google Scholar
- 20.Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 21.Swinkels, I. C., Hart, D. L., Deutscher, D., van den Bosch, W. J., Dekker, J., de Bakker, D. H., et al. (2008). Comparing patient characteristics and treatment processes in patients receiving physical therapy in the United States, Israel and the Netherlands. Cross sectional analyses of data from three clinical databases. BMC Health Services Research, 8(1), 163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Rossignol, M., Arsenault, B., Dionne, C. E., Poitras, S., Tousignant, M., & Truchon, M., et al. (2006). Clinic on Low-Back Pain in Interdisciplinary Practice (CLIP) Guidelines. In MPH Do (Ed.), Montreal, Canada: Agence de la sante et de services sociaux de Montreal.Google Scholar
- 27.Hyphantis, T., Tomenson, B., Paika, V., Almyroudi, A., Pappa, C., Tsifetaki, N., et al. (2009). Somatization is associated with physical health-related quality of life independent of anxiety and depression in cancer, glaucoma and rheumatological disorders. Quality of Life Research, 18(8), 1029–1042.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- 33.Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2006). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- 38.Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. A. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- 40.Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of ability using a response pattern of graded responses. Psycometrika. Monograph 17.Google Scholar
- 41.PARSCALE for Windows. v 4.1. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.; 2003.Google Scholar
- 43.Thissen, D. (2000). Reliability and measurement precision. In H. Wainer (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing a primer (2nd ed., pp. 159–184). Wahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 44.Rose, M., Bjorner, J. B., Becker, J., Fries, J. F., & Ware, J. E. (2008). Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(1), 17–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Deutscher, D., Hart, D. L., Crane, P. K., & Dickstein, R. (2010). Cross cultural differences in knee functional status outcomes in a polyglot society represented true disparities not biased by differential item functioning. Physical Therapy, 11(3), 288–303.Google Scholar
- 49.Crane, P. K., Gibbons, L. E., Ocepek-Welikson, K., Cook, K., Cella, D., Narasimhalu, K., et al. (2007). A comparison of three sets of criteria for determining the presence of differential item functioning using ordinal logistic regression. Quality of Life Research, 16 Suppl 1, 69–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 50.Stata Statistical Software: Release 9.2. College Station, TX2007.Google Scholar
- 53.Sackett, D. L., Straus, S. E., Richardson, W. S., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. B. (2000). Evidence-based medicine. How to practice and teach EBM (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar