» Articles » PMID: 32309761

Use of Computerized Adaptive Testing to Develop More Concise Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Overview
Date 2020 Apr 21
PMID 32309761
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential tools that are used to assess health status and treatment outcomes in orthopaedic care. Use of PROMs can burden patients with lengthy and cumbersome questionnaires. Predictive models using machine learning known as offer a potential solution. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of CAT to improve efficiency of the Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) by decreasing the question burden while maintaining the accuracy of the outcome score.

Methods: A previously developed CAT model was applied to the responses of 19,523 patients who had completed a full VR-12 survey while presenting to 1 of 5 subspecialty orthopaedic clinics. This resulted in the calculation of both a full-survey and CAT-model physical component summary score (PCS) and mental component summary score (MCS). Several analyses compared the accuracy of the CAT model scores with that of the full scores by comparing the means and standard deviations, calculating a Pearson correlation coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient, plotting the frequency distributions of the 2 score sets and the score differences, and performing a Bland-Altman assessment of scoring patterns.

Results: The CAT model required 4 fewer questions to be answered by each subject (33% decrease in question burden). The mean PCS was 1.3 points lower in the CAT model than with the full VR-12 (41.5 ± 11.0 versus 42.8 ± 10.4), and the mean MCS was 0.3 point higher (57.3 ± 9.4 versus 57.0 ± 9.6). The Pearson correlation coefficients were 0.97 for PCS and 0.98 for MCS, and the intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.96 and 0.97, respectively. The frequency distribution of the CAT and full scores showed significant overlap for both the PCS and the MCS. The difference between the CAT and full scores was less than the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in >95% of cases for the PCS and MCS.

Conclusions: The application of CAT to the VR-12 survey demonstrated an ability to lessen the response burden for patients with a negligible effect on score integrity.

Citing Articles

Optimizing Oxford Shoulder Scores with computerized adaptive testing reduces redundancy while maintaining precision.

Barakat A, Evans J, Gibbons C, Singh H Bone Joint Res. 2024; 13(8):392-400.

PMID: 39097982 PMC: 11298256. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.138.BJR-2023-0412.R1.


Seamless Integration of Computer-Adaptive Patient Reported Outcomes into an Electronic Health Record.

Nolla K, Rasmussen L, Rothrock N, Butt Z, Bass M, Davis K Appl Clin Inform. 2023; 15(1):145-154.

PMID: 38154472 PMC: 10881259. DOI: 10.1055/a-2235-9557.


Validation of the cognitive section of the Penn computerized adaptive test for neurocognitive and clinical psychopathology assessment (CAT-CCNB).

Di Sandro A, Moore T, Zoupou E, Kennedy K, Lopez K, Ruparel K Brain Cogn. 2023; 174:106117.

PMID: 38128447 PMC: 10799332. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2023.106117.


Research Trends of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Orthopedic Medical Practices: A Bibliometric and Visualized Study.

Jin H, He M, Xie W, Xiong Z, Deng Z, Li Y Medicina (Kaunas). 2023; 59(9).

PMID: 37763783 PMC: 10536719. DOI: 10.3390/medicina59091664.


Danish Linguistic Validation and Cultural Adaptation of the LIMB-Q Kids.

Jonsson C, Poulsen L, Rolfing J, Chhina H, Cooper A, Sorensen J Children (Basel). 2023; 10(7).

PMID: 37508603 PMC: 10377942. DOI: 10.3390/children10071107.


References
1.
Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View

2.
Parker S, Godil S, Shau D, Mendenhall S, McGirt M . Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012; 18(2):154-60. DOI: 10.3171/2012.10.SPINE12312. View

3.
McHorney C, Ware Jr J, Lu J, Sherbourne C . The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care. 1994; 32(1):40-66. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199401000-00004. View

4.
Bienstock D, Snyder D, Kroshus T, Ahn A, Koenig K, Molloy I . Relationship Between Baseline Patient-reported Outcomes and Demographic, Psychosocial, and Clinical Characteristics: A Retrospective Study. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2019; 3(5):e039. PMC: 6553630. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-19-00039. View

5.
Gornet M, Copay A, Sorensen K, Schranck F . Assessment of health-related quality of life in spine treatment: conversion from SF-36 to VR-12. Spine J. 2018; 18(7):1292-1297. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.02.023. View