Interpreting change scores of tests and measures used in physical therapy.

Over the past decade, the methods and science used to describe changes in outcomes of physical therapy services have become more refined. Recently, emphasis has been placed not only on changes beyond expected measurement error, but also on the identification of changes that make a real difference in the lives of patients and families. This article will highlight a case example of how to determine and interpret "clinically significant change" from both of these perspectives. The authors also examine how to use item maps within an item response theory model to enhance the interpretation of change at a content level. Recommendations are provided for physical therapists who are interpreting changes in the context of clinical practice, case reports, and intervention research. These recommendations include a greater application of indexes that help interpret the meaning of clinically significant change to multiple clinical, research, consumer, and payer communities.

[1]  S. Haley,et al.  A fitness program for children with disabilities. , 2005, Physical therapy.

[2]  A. Jette,et al.  Contemporary measurement techniques for rehabilitation outcomes assessment. , 2005, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[3]  Anastasia E. Raczek,et al.  Assessing mobility in children using a computer adaptive testing version of the pediatric evaluation of disability inventory. , 2005, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[4]  S. J. Sinclair,et al.  Item Response Theory and Computerized Adaptive Testing: Implications for Outcomes Measurement in Rehabilitation , 2005 .

[5]  Pengsheng Ni,et al.  A computer adaptive testing approach for assessing physical functioning in children and adolescents , 2005, Developmental medicine and child neurology.

[6]  K. Wyrwich.  Minimal Important Difference Thresholds and the Standard Error of Measurement: Is There a Connection? , 2004, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[7]  R. P. Di Fabio,et al.  Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. , 2004, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  D. Neuberg,et al.  A combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale. , 2004, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[9]  M. Kosinski,et al.  Score comparability of short forms and computerized adaptive testing: Simulation study with the activity measure for post-acute care. , 2004, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[10]  S. Haley,et al.  Establishing minimal clinically important differences for scores on the pediatric evaluation of disability inventory for inpatient rehabilitation. , 2003, Physical therapy.

[11]  Ross D Crosby,et al.  Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. , 2003, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  G. Norman,et al.  Is it simple or simplistic? , 2003, Medical care.

[13]  D. Beaton,et al.  Simple as possible? Or too simple? Possible limits to the universality of the one half standard deviation. , 2003, Medical care.

[14]  D. Cella,et al.  Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) anemia and fatigue scales. , 2002, Journal of pain and symptom management.

[15]  C. Terwee,et al.  A taxonomy for responsiveness? , 2002, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[16]  S. Haley,et al.  Functional Recovery in Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury During Inpatient Rehabilitation , 2002, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[17]  D. Cella,et al.  Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: Differences between improvement and worsening , 2002, Quality of Life Research.

[18]  M. Liang,et al.  Measuring Clinically Important Changes With Patient-Oriented Questionnaires , 2002, Medical care.

[19]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. , 2002, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[20]  D. Cella,et al.  Group vs individual approaches to understanding the clinical significance of differences or changes in quality of life. , 2002, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[21]  Eric T. Bradlow,et al.  Outlier Measures and Norming Methods for Computerized Adaptive Tests , 2001 .

[22]  B Shea,et al.  Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. , 2001, The Journal of rheumatology.

[23]  J Zhang,et al.  What are minimal important changes for asthma measures in a clinical trial? , 1999, The European respiratory journal.

[24]  W M Tierney,et al.  Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. , 1999, Medical care.

[25]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. , 1998, Physical therapy.

[26]  P. Stratford,et al.  Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire. , 1996, Physical therapy.

[27]  J. Case-Smith,et al.  Reliability and Validity of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory , 1996 .

[28]  S. Haley,et al.  Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory: Clinical Interpretation of Summary Scores Using Rasch Rating Scale Methodology , 1993 .

[29]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. , 1989, Controlled clinical trials.

[30]  David Thissen,et al.  A taxonomy of item response models , 1986 .

[31]  S. Haley,et al.  Evaluation of a Community-Based Group Fitness Program for Children With Disabilities , 2006, Pediatric physical therapy : the official publication of the Section on Pediatrics of the American Physical Therapy Association.

[32]  S. Haley,et al.  The Relationship Between Functional Mobility and the Intensity of Physical Therapy Intervention in Children with Traumatic Brain Injury , 2004, Pediatric physical therapy : the official publication of the Section on Pediatrics of the American Physical Therapy Association.

[33]  Steven D. Brown,et al.  Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling , 2000 .

[34]  R. Hambleton,et al.  Item Response Models for the Analysis of Educational and Psychological Test Data , 2000 .

[35]  W. Coster,et al.  Using IRT variable maps to enrich understanding of rehabilitation data. , 1999, Journal of outcome measurement.

[36]  C. McHorney,et al.  Health status assessment methods for adults: past accomplishments and future challenges. , 1999, Annual review of public health.

[37]  D. Andrich.  Rating Scale Analysis , 1999 .

[38]  Stephen M. Haley,et al.  Pediatric evaluation of disability inventory (PEDI) : development, standardization and administration manual , 1998 .

[39]  R. Linn.  Educational measurement, 3rd ed. , 1989 .

[40]  K. Hinderer,et al.  Clinical implication of the peabody developmental motor scales: a constructive review. , 1989, Physical & occupational therapy in pediatrics.

[41]  S. Cermak.  Chapter 5: Norms and Scores , 1989 .

[42]  R. Hambleton.  Principles and selected applications of item response theory. , 1989 .