Advertisement

Accuracy and Validity of Computer Adaptive Testing for Outcome Assessment in Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty

Published:February 13, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.02.016

      Abstract

      Background

      Computerized adaptive test (CAT) questionnaires may allow standardization of patient-reported outcome measures and reductions in questionnaire burden. We evaluated the validity, accuracy, and efficacy of a CAT system in patients with end-stage osteoarthritis undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

      Methods

      CAT Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS) and CAT KOOS-JR questionnaires were applied to 1871 standard form KOOS and 1493 KOOS-JR patient responses, respectively. Mean, standard deviations, Pearson’s correlation coefficients, interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), frequency distribution plots, and Bland-Altman plots were used to compare the precision, validity, and accuracy between CAT scores and full-form scores.

      Results

      There was a mean reduction of 14 questions (33%) in the CAT KOOS and 1.4 questions (20%) with the CAT KOOS-JR version, compared with the standard KOOS and KOOS-JR surveys, respectively. There were no significant differences between KOOS and CAT KOOS scores with respect to pain (P = .66), symptoms (P = .43), quality of life (P = .99), activities of daily living (P = .68), and sports (P = .84). Similarly, there were no significant differences between the standard form KOOS-JR and CAT KOOS-JR scores (P = .94). There were strong correlations with minimal variability between the CAT KOOS and standard KOOS questionnaires for pain (r = 0.98, ICC: 0.98), symptoms (r = 0.97, ICC: 0.97), quality of life scores (r = 0.99, ICC: 0.99), activities of daily living scores (r = 0.99, ICC: 0.99), and sports scores (r = 0.99, ICC: 0.99). Similarly, there were strong correlations between the KOOS-JR and the CAT KOOS-JR scores (r = 0.99, ICC: 0.99).

      Conclusion

      CAT KOOS and the CAT KOOS-JR versions are accurate and reduce questionnaire burden up to one-third compared with standard surveys. CAT versions may improve patient compliance and decrease fatigue.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The Journal of Arthroplasty
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Giesinger J.M.
        • Hamilton D.F.
        • Jost B.
        • Behrend H.
        • Giesinger K.
        WOMAC, EQ-5D and knee society score thresholds for treatment success after total knee arthroplasty.
        J Arthroplasty. 2015; 30: 2154-2158
        • Roos E.M.
        • Toksvig-Larsen S.
        Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) - validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement.
        Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003; 1: 17
        • Roos E.M.
        • Roos H.P.
        • Lohmander L.S.
        • Ekdahl C.
        • Beynnon B.D.
        Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS)--development of a self-administered outcome measure.
        J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998; 28: 88-96
        • Smith A.B.
        • Hanbury A.
        • Retzler J.
        Item banking and computer-adaptive testing in clinical trials: standing in sight of the PROMISed land.
        Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2019; 13: 005
        • Brodke D.J.
        • Hung M.
        • Bozic K.J.
        Item response theory and computerized adaptive testing for orthopaedic outcomes measures.
        J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016; 24: 750-754
        • Plummer O.R.
        • Abboud J.A.
        • Bell J.E.
        • Murthi A.M.
        • Romeo A.A.
        • Singh P.
        • et al.
        A concise shoulder outcome measure: application of computerized adaptive testing to the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Assessment.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019; 28: 1273-1280
        • Hung M.
        • Voss M.W.
        • Bounsanga J.
        • Gu Y.
        • Granger E.K.
        • Tashjian R.Z.
        Psychometrics of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system physical function instrument administered by computerized adaptive testing and the disabilities of arm, shoulder and hand in the orthopedic elbow patient population.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018; 27: 515-522
        • Robins R.J.
        • Anderson M.B.
        • Zhang Y.
        • Presson A.P.
        • Burks R.T.
        • Greis P.E.
        Convergent validity of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system's physical function computerized adaptive test for the knee and shoulder injury sports medicine patient population.
        Arthroscopy. 2017; 33: 608-616
        • Lyman S.
        • Lee Y.Y.
        • McLawhorn A.S.
        • Islam W.
        • MacLean C.H.
        What are the minimal and substantial improvements in the HOOS and KOOS and JR versions after total joint replacement?.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018; 476: 2432-2441
        • Gausden E.B.
        • Levack A.
        • Nwachukwu B.U.
        • Sin D.
        • Wellman D.S.
        • Lorich D.G.
        Computerized adaptive testing for patient reported outcomes in ankle fracture surgery.
        Foot Ankle Int. 2018; 39: 1192-1198
        • Cella D.
        • Yount S.
        • Rothrock N.
        • Gershon R.
        • Cook K.
        • Reeve B.
        • et al.
        The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years.
        Med Care. 2007; 45: S3-S11
        • Phillips J.L.H.
        • Freedman M.K.
        • Simon J.I.
        • Beredjiklian P.K.
        The PROMIS upper extremity computer adaptive test correlates with previously validated metrics in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome.
        Hand (N Y). 2019; (1558944719851182)
        • Phillips J.L.H.
        • Warrender W.J.
        • Lutsky K.F.
        • Beredjiklian P.K.
        Evaluation of the PROMIS upper extremity computer adaptive test against validated patient-reported outcomes in patients with basilar thumb arthritis.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2019; 44: 564-569
        • Trasolini N.A.
        • Korber S.
        • Gipsman A.
        • San A.E.
        • Weber A.E.
        • Hatch 3rd, G.F.R.
        Performance of PROMIS computer adaptive testing as compared with established instruments for multiple-ligament knee injuries.
        Orthop J Sports Med. 2019; 7 (2325967119867419)
        • Harrison C.J.
        • Geerards D.
        • Ottenhof M.J.
        • Klassen A.F.
        • Riff K.W.Y.W.
        • Swan M.C.
        • et al.
        Computerised adaptive testing accurately predicts CLEFT-Q scores by selecting fewer, more patient-focused questions.
        J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2019; 72: 1819-1824
        • Hung M.
        • Stuart A.R.
        • Higgins T.F.
        • Saltzman C.L.
        • Kubiak E.N.
        Computerized adaptive testing using the PROMIS physical function item bank reduces test burden with less ceiling effects compared with the short musculoskeletal function assessment in orthopaedic trauma patients.
        J Orthop Trauma. 2014; 28: 439-443
        • Beckmann J.T.
        • Hung M.
        • Voss M.W.
        • Crum A.B.
        • Bounsanga J.
        • Tyser A.R.
        Evaluation of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system upper extremity computer adaptive test.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2016; 41: 739-744.e4