Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective:

To calibrate an item bank of anxiety-related questions for use in orthopedic patients within a computer-adaptive test.

Design:

This is a psychometric study.

Setting:

The sample of orthopedic patients was recruited in two orthopedic rehabilitation clinics in Germany.

Subjects:

A total of 474 orthopedic rehabilitation patients were recruited for this study.

Interventions:

Not applicable.

Main measures:

The main measure is an adapted version of an existing anxiety item pool for cardiovascular rehabilitation patients.

Results:

The results of the confirmatory factor analysis and Mokken analysis confirmed a one-factor structure and double monotonicity. An anxiety item bank (48 items) could be developed and calibrated using Rasch analysis. It fitted to the Rasch model with a non-significant item–trait interaction (χ²(203) = 172.59; P = .94) and was free of differential item functioning. Unidimensionality could be verified and the person separation reliability was .96. The category threshold parameters varied between 4.72 and 3.16 (7.88 logits).

Conclusion:

The unidimensional anxiety item bank provides the basis for a computer-adaptive test to assess a wide range of anxiety in rehabilitation patients with orthopedic diseases with very good psychometric characteristics.

Keywords

Anxiety orthopedic disease computer-adaptive test item bank item response theory Rasch model

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Härter

Hahn

Baumeister

et al. Komorbidität bei Patienten mit muskuloskelettalen und kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen. J Public Health 2004; 12: 162–167.

De Moraes

Jorge

Faloppa

et al. Anxiety and depression in Brazilian orthopaedics inpatients: a cross sectional study with a clinical sample comparison. J Clin Psychol Med Settings 2010; 17(1): 31–37.

Härter

Baumeister

Reuter

et al. Increased 12-month prevalence rates of mental disorders in patients with chronic somatic diseases. Psychother Psychosom 2007; 76(6): 354–360.

Baumeister

Härter

Psychische Komorbidität bei muskuloskelettalen Erkrankungen. Bundesgesundheitsblatt 2011; 54: 52–58.

Matcham

Norton

Scott

et al. Symptoms of depression and anxiety predict treatment response and long-term physical health outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Rheumatology 2016; 55(2): 268–278.

Härter

Woll

Reuter

et al. Recognition of psychiatric disorders in musculoskeletal and cardiovascular rehabilitation patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85(7): 1192–1197.

Jahed

Bitz

Bengel

et al. Dokumentation komorbider psychischer Störungen in der medizinischen Rehabilitation: Eine Analyse ärztlicher Entlassungsberichte. Rehabil 2012; 51: 385–391.

Reuter

Woll

Stadelmann

et al. Erkennen und Behandeln psychischer Belastungen und Störungen in der orthopädischen Rehabilitation. Z Klin Psychol Psychiatr Psychother 2002; 3: 313–327.

Reuter

Härter

Diagnostik psychischer Belastungen und Störungen bei körperlichen Erkrankungen. In: Härter

Baumeister

Bengel

(eds) Psychische Störungen bei körperlichen Erkrankungen. Heidelberg: Springer, 2007, pp.15–28.

10.

Elhan

Öztuna

Kutlay

et al. An initial application of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) for measuring disability in patients with low back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008; 9: 166.

11.

Gibbons

Weiss

Kupfer

et al. Using computerized adaptive testing to reduce the burden of mental health assessment. Psychiatr Serv 2008; 59(4): 361–368.

12.

Meijer

Nering

ML.

Computerized adaptive testing: overview and introduction. Appl Psychol Meas 1999; 23: 187–194.

13.

Ware

Sinclair

Gandek

et al. Item response theory and computerized adaptive testing. Rehabil Psychol 2005; 50: 71–78.

14.

Van der Linden

. Computerized adaptive testing: theory and practice. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic, 2000.

15.

Reeve

BB.

Special issues for building computerized adaptive tests for measuring patient-reported outcomes. Med Care 2006; 44(11 suppl 3): S198–S204.

16.

Gershon

RC.

Computer adaptive testing. J Appl Meas 2005; 6: 109–127.

17.

Pilkonis

Choi

Reise

et al. Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®): depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment 2011; 18: 263–283.

18.

Walter

Becker

Bjorner

et al. Development and evaluation of a computer adaptive test for “Anxiety” (Anxiety-CAT). Qual Life Res 2007; 16(suppl 1): 143–155.

19.

Abberger

Haschke

Krense

et al. The calibrated, unidimensional anxiety item bank for cardiovascular patients provided the basis for anxiety assessment in cardiovascular rehabilitation patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66(8): 919–927.

20.

Zigmond

Snaith

RP.

The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983; 67: 361–370.

21.

World Health Organization (WHO). International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10). Geneva: WHO, 2010.

22.

World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki—ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J Am Med Assoc 2013; 310: 2191–2194.

23.

Berg

Book

Dinkel

et al. Progredienzangst bei chronischen Erkrankungen. Psychother Psych Med 2011; 61: 32–37.

24.

Kwakkenbos

van Lankveld

Vonk

et al. Disease-related and psychosocial factors associated with depressive symptoms in patients with systemic sclerosis, including fear of progression and appearance self-esteem. J Psychosom Res 2012; 72(3): 199–204.

25.

Hambleton

RK.

Emergence of item response modeling in instrument development and data analysis. Med Care 2000; 38(9 suppl): II60–II65.

26.

Millman

Arter

JA.

Issues in item banking. J Educ Meas 1984; 21: 315–330.

27.

Forkmann

Böecker

Norra

et al. Development of an item bank for the assessment of depression in persons with mental illnesses and physical diseases using Rasch analysis. Rehabil Psychol 2009; 54(2): 186–197.

28.

Muthén

. Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

29.

Bentler

PM.

Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999; 6: 1–55.

30.

Browne

Cudeck

Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods Res 1992; 21: 230–258.

31.

Mokken

RJ.

A theory and procedure of scale analysis. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971.

32.

Mokken

RJ.

Nonparametric models for dichotomous responses. In: Linden

Hambleton

(eds) Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer, 1997, pp.350–367.

33.

Embretson

Reise

SP.

Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.

34.

Rasch

Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Oxford: Nielsen & Lydiche, 1960.

35.

Gilworth

Chamberlain

Bhakta

et al. Development of the BD-QoL: a quality of life measure specific to Behçet’s disease. J Rheumatol 2004; 31: 931–937.

36.

Hays

Morales

Reise

SP.

Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 2000; 38(9 suppl): II28–II42.

37.

Tennant

Conaghan

PG.

The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 57(8): 1358–1362.

38.

Andrich

Lyne

Sheridan

et al. RUMM2030, http://www.rummlab.com.au/

39.

Masters

GN.

A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika 1982; 47: 149–174.

40.

Lamoureux

Pallant

Pesudovs

et al. The Impact of Vision Impairment Questionnaire: an evaluation of its measurement properties using Rasch analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47(11): 4732–4741.

41.

Pallant

Miller

Tennant

Evaluation of the Edingburgh Post Natal Depression Scale using Rasch analysis. BMC Psych 2006; 6: 28.

42.

Christensen

Makransky

Horton

Critical values for Yen’s Q3: identification of local dependence in the Rasch model using residual correlations. Appl Psychol Meas 2017; 41(3): 178–194.

43.

Marais

Local dependence. In: Christensen

Kreiner

Mesbah

(eds) Rasch models in health. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013, pp.111–130.

44.

Tennant

Pallant

JF.

DIF matters: a practical approach to test if differential item functioning makes a difference. Rasch Meas Trans 2007; 20: 1082–1084.

45.

Haschke

Abberger

Müller

et al. Calibration of an item bank for work capacity in cardiological rehabilitation patients. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2013; 20(5): 807–816.

46.

Smith

EV.

Detecting and evaluating the impact of mulitdimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. J Appl Meas 2002; 3: 205–231.

47.

Baumeister

Abberger

Haschke

et al. Development and calibration of an item bank for the assessment of activities of daily living in cardiovascular patients using Rasch analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013; 11: 133.

48.

Cook

Kallen

Amtmann

Having a fit: impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT’s unidimensionality assumption. Qual Life Res 2009; 18: 447–460.

49.

Abberger

Haschke

Wirtz

et al. Development and evaluation of a computer adaptive test to assess anxiety in cardiovascular rehabilitation patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94(12): 2433–2439.

50.

Forkmann

Kroehne

Wirtz

et al. Adaptive screening for depression—recalibration of an item bank for the assessment of depression in persons with mental and somatic diseases and evaluation in a simulated computer-adaptive test environment. J Psychosom Res 2013; 75(5): 437–443.

51.

Scholz

Müller

Kröhne

et al. Validierung der computeradaptiven Assessmentprozedur RehaCAT hinsichtlich funktionaler und psychischer Belastungen bei Rehabilitanden mit muskuloskelettalen Erkrankungen. Rehabil 2014; 53: 290–296.

52.

Abberger

Haschke

Tully

et al. Development and validation of parallel short forms PaSA-cardio for the assessment of general anxiety in cardiovascular rehabilitation patients using Rasch analysis. Clin Rehabil 2017; 31(1): 104–114.

53.

Schmucker

Abberger

Boecker

et al. Parallel short forms for the assessment of activities of daily living in cardiovascular rehabilitation patients (PADL-cardio): development and validation. Disab Rehabil 2017; 41: 826–832.

54.

Haschke

Abberger

Schröder

et al. Überprüfung kalibrierter Itembanken zur Erfassung der beruflichen Funktionsfähigkeit an einer Stichprobe ambulanter kardiologischer Rehabilitanden. Rehabil 2013; 52: 383–390.

55.

Müller

Bengel

Wirtz

Validität und Änderungssensitivität der Skalen zur Erfassung der Funktionsfähigkeit im Beruf (SE-FFB). Rehabil 2013; 53: 176–183.

Calibration of an item bank in 474 orthopedic patients using Rasch analysis for computer-adaptive assessment of anxiety

Abstract

Objective:

Design:

Setting:

Subjects:

Interventions:

Main measures:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References