Search

Showing total 3 results
Start Over Topic confidence intervals Publication Year Range Last 10 years
3 results

1. Score equivalence of paper-, tablet-, and interactive voice response system-based versions of PROMIS, PRO-CTCAE, and numerical rating scales among cancer patients.

Author

Lee, Minji K., Beebe, Timothy J., Yost, Kathleen J., Eton, David T., Novotny, Paul J., Dueck, Amylou C., Frost, Marlene, and Sloan, Jeff A.

Subjects
INTERACTIVE voice response (Telecommunication), MENTAL health of cancer patients, TABLET computers, MENTAL depression, COMPUTER software, ACQUISITION of data, ELECTRODIAGNOSIS, RESEARCH evaluation, CONFIDENCE intervals, RESEARCH methodology evaluation, RESEARCH methodology, HEALTH outcome assessment, AUTOMATIC speech recognition, CANCER patients, COMPARATIVE studies, QUESTIONNAIRES, RESEARCH funding, DESCRIPTIVE statistics, QUALITY of life, DATA analysis software, PORTABLE computers, EVALUATION
Abstract

Background: The study tests the effects of data collection modes on patient responses associated with the multi-item measures such as Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMIS®), and single-item measures such as Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) measures. Methods: Adult cancer patients were recruited from five cancer centers and administered measures of anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain intensity, pain interference, ability to participate in social roles and activities, global mental and physical health, and physical function. Patients were randomized to complete the measures on paper (595), interactive voice response (IVR, 596) system, or tablet computer (589). We evaluated differential item functioning (DIF) by method of data collection using the R software package, lordif. For constructs that showed no DIF, we concluded equivalence across modes if the equivalence margin, defined as ± 0.20 × pooled SD, completely surrounds 95% confidence intervals (CI's) for difference in mean score. If the 95% CI fell totally outside the equivalence margin, we concluded systematic score difference by modes. If the 95% CI partly overlaps the equivalence margin, we concluded neither equivalence nor difference. Results: For all constructs, no DIF of any kind was found for the three modes. The scores on paper and tablet were more comparable than between IVR and other modes but none of the 95% CI's were completely outside the equivalence margins, in which we established neither equivalence nor difference. Percentages of missing values were comparable for paper and tablet modes. Percentages of missing values were higher for IVR (2.3% to 6.5% depending on measures) compared to paper and tablet modes (0.7% to 3.3% depending on measures and modes), which was attributed to random technical difficulties experienced in some centers. Conclusion: Across all mode comparisons, there were some measures with CI's not completely contained within the margin of small effect. Two visual modes agreed more than visual-auditory pairs. IVR may induce differences in scores unrelated to constructs being measured in comparison with paper and tablet. The users of the surveys should consider using IVR only when paper and computer administration is not feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. King-Devick Test Time Varies by Testing Modality

Author

Breton M Asken, Zachary M Houck, Justus D. Ortega, Michael S. Jaffee, Julianne D. Schmidt, Thomas W. McAllister, Michael McCrea, Anthony P. Kontos, Kimberly G. Harmon, Nicole L Hoffman, Jonathan K. Boone, Thomas A. Buckley, Steven P. Broglio, Sara P D Chrisman, and James R Clugston

Subjects
Male, Paper, medicine.medical_specialty, Time Factors, Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation, Neuropsychological Tests, Young Adult, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Concussion, Confidence Intervals, Humans, Medicine, Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Students, Setting national, Brain Concussion, Modality (human–computer interaction), Modalities, business.industry, 030229 sport sciences, medicine.disease, Confidence interval, Test (assessment), Cross-Sectional Studies, Athletes, Athletic Injuries, Minicomputers, Physical therapy, Female, Completion time, business, 030217 neurology & neurosurgery, Cohort study
Abstract

OBJECTIVE To explore differences in baseline King-Devick Test (KD) completion time between 2 testing modalities: (1) spiral-bound paper cards (cards) and (2) iPad application (iPad). DESIGN Cross-sectional cohort analysis. SETTING National Collegiate Athlete Association (NCAA) institutions. PARTICIPANTS Student athletes from 13 women's and 11 men's collegiate sports who completed KD baseline testing as part of their first year in the Concussion Assessment, Research and Education (CARE) Consortium from 2014 to 2016 (n = 2003, 52.2% male). INDEPENDENT VARIABLES King-Devick Test modalities; cards or iPad. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Baseline KD completion time (seconds). RESULTS Mean baseline KD completion time of the iPad modality group [42.8 seconds, 95% confidence interval (CI), 42.1-43.3] was 2.8 seconds (95% CI, 2.1-3.4) greater than the cards group (40.0 seconds, 95% CI, 39.7-40.3) (t(1, 1010.7) = -8.0, P < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.41). CONCLUSIONS Baseline KD performance is slower when tested on an iPad than when tested on spiral-bound paper cards. The 2 KD modalities should not be used interchangeably in concussion assessments because differences in the modalities can lead to time differences similar in magnitude to those used to indicate concussion. From a research perspective, modality may influence interpretation and/or synthesis of findings across studies.

Published
2018

3. Test–retest reliability and comparability of paper and computer questionnaires for the Finnish version of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia

Author

Hannu Kautiainen, Timo Pohjolainen, Heikki Hurri, S. Aho, and Petteri Koho

Subjects
Adult, Male, Paper, medicine.medical_specialty, Psychometrics, Intraclass correlation, medicine.medical_treatment, Poison control, Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation, Severity of Illness Index, Physical medicine and rehabilitation, Surveys and Questionnaires, Confidence Intervals, medicine, Humans, Psychological testing, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Finland, Reliability (statistics), Aged, Rehabilitation, business.industry, Chronic pain, Reproducibility of Results, Middle Aged, medicine.disease, Confidence interval, Test (assessment), Kinesiology, Applied, Physical therapy, Female, Chronic Pain, business
Abstract

Objectives To estimate the internal consistency, test–retest reliability and comparability of paper and computer versions of the Finnish version of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-FIN) among patients with chronic pain. In addition, patients’ personal experiences of completing both versions of the TSK-FIN and preferences between these two methods of data collection were studied. Design Test–retest reliability study. Paper and computer versions of the TSK-FIN were completed twice on two consecutive days. Participants The sample comprised 94 consecutive patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain participating in a pain management or individual rehabilitation programme. The group rehabilitation design consisted of physical and functional exercises, evaluation of the social situation, psychological assessment of pain-related stress factors, and personal pain management training in order to regain overall function and mitigate the inconvenience of pain and fear-avoidance behaviour. Results The mean TSK-FIN score was 37.1 [standard deviation (SD) 8.1] for the computer version and 35.3 (SD 7.9) for the paper version. The mean difference between the two versions was 1.9 (95% confidence interval 0.8 to 2.9). Test–retest reliability was 0.89 for the paper version and 0.88 for the computer version. Internal consistency was considered to be good for both versions. The intraclass correlation coefficient for comparability was 0.77 (95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.85), indicating substantial reliability between the two methods. Conclusion Both versions of the TSK-FIN demonstrated substantial intertest reliability, good test–retest reliability, good internal consistency and acceptable limits of agreement, suggesting their suitability for clinical use. However, subjects tended to score higher when using the computer version. As such, in an ideal situation, data should be collected in a similar manner throughout the course of rehabilitation or clinical research.

Published
2014