Why the study?
Does computerized adaptive testing provide more efficient and reliable scores than fixed-length short forms for the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility?
Does computerized adaptive testing provide more efficient and reliable scores than fixed-length short forms for the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility?
Computerized adaptive testing for the PLUS-M survey is more efficient and provides more reliable scores at higher mobility levels compared to fixed-length short forms.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support CAT over short forms for efficient PLUS-M scoring in prosthetic users; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
Results indicate that the PLUS-M computerized adaptive test is most efficient, and differences in scores between administration methods are minimal. The main advantage of the computerized adaptive test was more reliable scores at higher levels of mobility compared to short forms. Clinical relevance Health-related item banks, like the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-MTM), can be administered by computerized adaptive testing (CAT) or as fixed-length short forms (SFs). Results of this study will help clinicians and researchers decide whether they should invest in a CAT administration system or whether SFs are more appropriate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Amtmann et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: