|Title||Assessing mobility in children using a computer adaptive testing version of the pediatric evaluation of disability inventory|
|Publication Type||Journal Article|
|Year of Publication||2005|
|Authors||Haley, SM, Raczek, AE, Coster, WJ, Dumas, HM, Fragala-Pinkham, MA|
|Journal||Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation|
|ISBN Number||0003-9993 (Print)|
|Keywords||*Computer Simulation, *Disability Evaluation, Adolescent, Child, Child, Preschool, Cross-Sectional Studies, Disabled Children/*rehabilitation, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Outcome Assessment (Health Care)/*methods, Rehabilitation Centers, Rehabilitation/*standards, Sensitivity and Specificity|
OBJECTIVE: To assess score agreement, validity, precision, and response burden of a prototype computerized adaptive testing (CAT) version of the Mobility Functional Skills Scale (Mob-CAT) of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) as compared with the full 59-item version (Mob-59). DESIGN: Computer simulation analysis of cross-sectional and longitudinal retrospective data; and cross-sectional prospective study. SETTING: Pediatric rehabilitation hospital, including inpatient acute rehabilitation, day school program, outpatient clinics, community-based day care, preschool, and children's homes. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred sixty-nine children with disabilities and 412 children with no disabilities (analytic sample); 41 children without disabilities and 39 with disabilities (cross-validation sample). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Summary scores from a prototype Mob-CAT application and versions using 15-, 10-, and 5-item stopping rules; scores from the Mob-59; and number of items and time (in seconds) to administer assessments. RESULTS: Mob-CAT scores from both computer simulations (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] range, .94-.99) and field administrations (ICC=.98) were in high agreement with scores from the Mob-59. Using computer simulations of retrospective data, discriminant validity, and sensitivity to change of the Mob-CAT closely approximated that of the Mob-59, especially when using the 15- and 10-item stopping rule versions of the Mob-CAT. The Mob-CAT used no more than 15% of the items for any single administration, and required 20% of the time needed to administer the Mob-59. CONCLUSIONS: Comparable score estimates for the PEDI mobility scale can be obtained from CAT administrations, with losses in validity and precision for shorter forms, but with a considerable reduction in administration time.