Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26710104›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Construct Validation of a Multidimensional Computerized Adaptive Test for Fatigue in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Stephanie Nikolaus, Christina Bode, Erik Taal, Harald E Vonkeman, Cees A W Glas, Mart A F J van de Laar

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Stephanie NikolausDepartment of Psychology, Health & Technology, Faculty of Behavioral, Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Christina BodeDepartment of Psychology, Health & Technology, Faculty of Behavioral, Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Erik TaalDepartment of Psychology, Health & Technology, Faculty of Behavioral, Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Harald E VonkemanDepartment of Psychology, Health & Technology, Faculty of Behavioral, Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Cees A W GlasDepartment of Research Methodology, Measurement and Data Analysis, Faculty of Behavioral, Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Mart A F J van de LaarDepartment of Psychology, Health & Technology, Faculty of Behavioral, Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMultidimensional computerized adaptive testing enables precise measurements of patient-reported outcomes at an individual level across different dimensions. This study examined the construct validity of a multidimensional computerized adaptive test (CAT) for fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

methodsThe 'CAT Fatigue RA' was constructed based on a previously calibrated item bank. It contains 196 items and three dimensions: 'severity', 'impact' and 'variability' of fatigue. The CAT was administered to 166 patients with RA. They also completed a traditional, multidimensional fatigue questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ) and the SF-36 in order to examine the CAT's construct validity. A priori criterion for construct validity was that 75% of the correlations between the CAT dimensions and the subscales of the other questionnaires were as expected. Furthermore, comprehensive use of the item bank, measurement precision and score distribution were investigated.

resultsThe a priori criterion for construct validity was supported for two of the three CAT dimensions (severity and impact but not for variability). For severity and impact, 87% of the correlations with the subscales of the well-established questionnaires were as expected but for variability, 53% of the hypothesised relations were found. Eighty-nine percent of the items were selected between one and 137 times for CAT administrations. Measurement precision was excellent for the severity and impact dimensions, with more than 90% of the CAT administrations reaching a standard error below 0.32. The variability dimension showed good measurement precision with 90% of the CAT administrations reaching a standard error below 0.44. No floor- or ceiling-effects were found for the three dimensions.

conclusionThe CAT Fatigue RA showed good construct validity and excellent measurement precision on the dimensions severity and impact. The dimension variability had less ideal measurement characteristics, pointing to the need to recalibrate the CAT item bank with a two-dimensional model, solely consisting of severity and impact.

Indexed as

Self ReportAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArthritis, RheumatoidComputersFatigueFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID26710104
PMCPMC4692469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.