Observational studyProsthetics and orthotics international2018
A comparison of computerized adaptive testing and fixed-length short forms for the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M
Observational study in Prosthetics and orthotics international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measuring satisfaction with orthotic and prosthetic devices.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Creating adjusted scores targeting mobility empowerment (CASTLE 2): Using response probabilities to expand interpretation of prosthetic limb users survey of mobility (PLUS-M) scores for individuals with lower limb amputation.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Distinguishing retrospective fallers from nonfallers in people who use a unilateral lower-limb prosthesis.Prosthetics and orthotics international · 2026Article
- Computer Adaptive vs. Non-adaptive Medical Progress Testing: Feasibility, Test Performance, and Student Experiences.Perspectives on medical education · 2024Article
- Development of a candidate item bank for measuring mobility of lower limb orthosis users.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2023Review
- Development of an item bank for measuring prosthetic mobility in people with lower limb amputation: The Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M).PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Computerized Adaptive Testing Versus Fixed Short Forms in Juvenile Myositis.Arthritis care & research · 2023Article
- Computerized-adaptive testing versus short forms for pediatric inflammatory bowel disease patient-reported outcome assessment.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Development and validation of the University of Washington caregiver stress and benefit scales for caregivers of children with or without serious health conditions.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020Article
- Mobility Analysis of AmpuTees II: Comorbidities and Mobility in Lower Limb Prosthesis Users.American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNew health status instruments can be administered by computerized adaptive test or short forms. The Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M
objectivesTo compare scores obtained from computerized adaptive test to scores obtained from fixed-length short forms (7-item and 12-item) in order to provide guidance to researchers and clinicians on how to select the best form of administration for different uses. STUDY
designCross-sectional, observational study.
methodsIndividuals with lower limb loss completed the PLUS-M by computerized adaptive test and short forms. Administration time, correlations between the scores, and standard errors were compared.
resultsScores and standard errors from the computerized adaptive test, 7-item short form, and 12-item short form were highly correlated and all forms of administration were efficient. Computerized adaptive test required less time to administer than either paper or electronic short forms; however, time savings were minimal compared to the 7-item short form.
conclusionResults 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-M
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.