A considerable variety of outcome measurement tools are used in the foot and ankle clinical literature , with a small proportion used consistently .
The AOFAS scales continue to be used at a high rate relative to other scales that have been vali date d. Data from the present study underscore the need for a paradigm shift toward the use of consistent , valid , and reliable outcome measures for studies of foot and ankle procedures and disorders .
It is not clear which existing vali date d outcome instruments will emerge as widely used and clinical ly meaningful .
BACKGROUND In the orthopaedic literature , there is a wide range of clinical outcome measurement tools that have been used in evaluating foot and ankle procedures , disorders , and outcomes , with no broadly accepted consensus as to which tools are preferred .
The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and distribution of the various outcome instruments used in the foot and ankle literature , and to identify trends for use of these instruments over time .
The PROMIS of Better Outcome Assessment: Responsiveness, Floor and Ceiling Effects, and Internet Administration
Objective . Use of item response theory ( IRT ) and , subsequently , computerized adaptive testing ( CAT ) , under the umbrella of the NIH-PROMIS initiative ( National Institutes of Health – Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System ) , to bring strong new assets to the development of more sensitive , more widely applicable , and more efficiently administered patient-reported outcome ( PRO ) instruments . We present data on current progress in 3 crucial areas : floor and ceiling effects , responsiveness to change , and interactive computer-based administration over the Internet . Methods . We examined nearly 1000 patients with rheumatoid arthritis and related diseases in a series of studies including a one-year longitudinal examination of detection of change ; compared responsiveness of the Legacy SF-36 and HAQ-DI instruments with IRT-based instruments ; performed a r and omized head-to-head trial of 4 modes of item administration ; and simulated the effect of lack of floor and ceiling items upon statistical power and sample sizes . Results . IRT-based PROMIS instruments are more sensitive to change , result ing in the potential to reduce sample size requirements substantially by up to a factor of 4 . The modes of administration tested did not differ from each other in any instance by more than one-tenth of a st and ard deviation . Floor and ceiling effects greatly reduce the number of available subjects , particularly at the ceiling . Conclusion . Failure to adequately address floor and ceiling effects , which determine the range of an instrument , can result in suboptimal assessment of many patients . Improved items , improved instruments , and computer-based administration improve PRO assessment and represent a fundamental advance in clinical outcomes research
A considerable variety of outcome measurement tools are used in the foot and ankle clinical literature , with a small proportion used consistently .
The AOFAS scales continue to be used at a high rate relative to other scales that have been vali date d. Data from the present study underscore the need for a paradigm shift toward the use of consistent , valid , and reliable outcome measures for studies of foot and ankle procedures and disorders .
It is not clear which existing vali date d outcome instruments will emerge as widely used and clinical ly meaningful .
BACKGROUND In the orthopaedic literature , there is a wide range of clinical outcome measurement tools that have been used in evaluating foot and ankle procedures , disorders , and outcomes , with no broadly accepted consensus as to which tools are preferred .
The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and distribution of the various outcome instruments used in the foot and ankle literature , and to identify trends for use of these instruments over time .