The aim of the present study was to compare measurement precisions of the Oswestry Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and a computer adaptive testing (CAT) method. The ODQ has been regarded as one of the most reliable condition-specific measure for back pain for decades. Cross-sectional study was carried out with two independent convenient samples from two out-patient rehabilitation clinics for back pain (n1=42) and non-back pain group (n2=42). Participants were asked to fill out the ODQ and CAT of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-Activity Measure (ICF-AM). A series of Rasch analyses were performed to calculate person ability measures. The CAT measures had greater relative precision in discriminating the groups than did the ODQ measure in comparisons of the relative precision. The CAT measure appears to be more effective than did the ODQ measure in terms of measurement precision. By administering test items calibrated in a way, CAT measures using item response theory may promise a means with measurement precision as well as efficiency.
Most conventional instruments measuring disability rely on total score by simply adding individual item responses, which is dependent on the items chosen to represent the underlying construct (test-dependent) and a test statistic, such as coefficient alpha for the estimate of reliability, varying from sample to sample (sample-dependent). By contrast, item response theory (IRT) method focuses on the psychometric properties of the test items instead of the instrument as a whole. By estimating probability that a respondent will select a particular rating for an item, item difficulty and person ability (or disability) can be placed on same linear continuum. These estimates are invariant regardless of the item used (test-free measurement) and the ability of sample applied (sample-free measurement). These advantages of IRT allow the creation of invariantly calibrated large item banks that precisely discriminate the disability levels of individuals. Computer adaptive testing (CAT) method often requiring a testing algorithm promise a means for administering items in a way that is both efficient and precise. This method permits selectively administering items that are closely matched to the ability level of individuals (measurement precision) and measuring the ability without the loss of precision provided by the full item bank (measurement efficiency). These measurement properties can reasonably be achieved using IRT and CAT method. This article aims to investigate comprehensive overview of the existing disability instrument for back pain and to inform physical therapists of an alternative innovative way overcoming the shortcomings of conventional disability instruments. An understanding of IRT and CAT method will equip physical therapist with skills in interpreting the measurement properties of disability instruments developed using the methods.
The purpose of this study was to assess the agreement of manual muscle testing (MMT) and test-retest reliability of a hand held dynamometer for the posterior gluteus medius muscle, with and without lumbar stabilization, using a pressure biofeedback unit for patients with low back pain. The pressure biofeedback unit was used to minimize the substitute motion of the lumbopelvic region during hip abduction in patients lying on their side. Fifteen patients with low back pain participated in this study. A tester determined the MMT grades of the posterior gluteus medius with and without the pressure biofeedback unit. Active hip abduction range of motion with an inclinometer and the strength of their posterior gluteus medius using a hand held dynamometer were measured with and without the pressure biofeedback unit in the MMT position. The agreement of the grade of muscle strength in the MMT, and intra-rater reliability of both the active hip abduction range of motion and the strength of posterior gluteus medius were analyzed using the weighted kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), respectively. The agreement of MMT with the pressure biofeedback unit (weighted kappa=.92) was higher than the MMT (weighted kappa=.34)(p<.05). The inclinometer with pressure biofeedback unit measurement of the active hip abduction range of motion had an excellent intra-rater reliability (ICC=.90). Also, the hand held dynamometer with pressure biofeedback unit measure of strength of the posterior gluteus medius had a good intra-rater reliability (ICC=.85). Therefore, the test for muscle strength with pressure biofeedback unit will be a reliable method for the determination of the MMT grades or amount of posterior gluteus medius muscle strength and the measurement of the range of motion for hip abduction in patients with low back pain.
When comparing the traditional financial risk measurements, Value at Risk(VaR) has its benefits for providing a single number that summarizes the overall market risk of the portfolio. Considering the fact that VaR measurement is standardized as a tool for international market risk measurement, back-testing the accuracy and performance of the VaR models plays a crucial role. In this sense, this paper proposes a way to validate the accuracy of the VaR models. Firstly, Bayes factor is used to assess statistical accuracy of the models. For the next step, loss function is applied to measure the differences between the realized and expected losses. Through the procedure, back-testing VaR models considering both frequency and magnitude of violations and comparing between the models can be achieved.