Computerized Adaptive Test for Patients With Lumbar Spine Impairments Produced Valid and Responsive Measures of Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Outcomes instrument validation study. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated administrative efficiency and psychometric adequacy of a computerized adaptive test (CAT) for patients with lumbar spine impairments seeking rehabilitation in outpatient therapy clinics. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CATs promise efficient outcomes data collection in clinical applications with little loss of measurement precision compared to paper and pencil surveys. The lumbar CAT has been developed and simulated and is currently used routinely in therapy clinics. The CAT has not been assessed for administrative efficiency, and the outcomes measures estimated using the CAT have not been assessed using prospective data collection for validity, sensitivity to change, or responsiveness. METHODS: Data from 17,439 patients with lumbar spine impairments receiving outpatient rehabilitation in 377 clinics in 30 states (United States) were analyzed. We evaluated efficiency of routine CAT administration and assessed construct validity, sensitivity to change, and responsiveness of CAT measures of lumbar functional status (FS). RESULTS: On average, patients took less than 2 minutes (standard deviation <1 minute) to answer 7 CAT items (standard deviation, 3), which produced precise estimates of FS that adequately covered the content range with negligible floor and ceiling effects. Patients who were older had more chronic symptoms, had more surgeries, had more comorbidities, and did not exercise before receiving rehabilitation reported worse discharge FS. A total of 66% of patients obtained statistically significant change (95% confidence interval minimal detectable change) at discharge. Change of 5 FS units (scale, 0-100) represented minimal clinically important improvement, which 70% of patients obtained. Minimal detectable change and minimal clinically important improvement were associated with intake FS. CONCLUSION: We concluded the lumbar CAT administration was efficient, and CAT FS measures were precise, valid, sensitive, and responsive, supporting lumbar CAT use in clinical and research applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".