Interpretability and Clinical Utility of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory - Patient Reported Outcome (PEDI-PRO) Score Report.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS
Ariel Schwartz, Fiorella Guerrero Calle, Elizabeth Barbour, Andrew Persch, Beth Pfeiffer, Daniel K Davies, Erik J Mugele, Jessica Kramer
{"title":"Interpretability and Clinical Utility of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory - Patient Reported Outcome (PEDI-PRO) Score Report.","authors":"Ariel Schwartz, Fiorella Guerrero Calle, Elizabeth Barbour, Andrew Persch, Beth Pfeiffer, Daniel K Davies, Erik J Mugele, Jessica Kramer","doi":"10.1080/01942638.2024.2378064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Well-designed score reports can support therapists to accurately interpret assessments. We piloted a score report for the Pediatric Evaluation Disability Inventory-Patient Reported Outcome (PEDI-PRO) and evaluated: 1) To what extent can occupational and physical therapists (OT, PT) accurately interpret item-response theory (IRT)-based PEDI-PRO assessment results? 2) What is the perceived clinical utility of the pilot score report?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Exploratory, sequential mixed methods design. Focus groups with OT and PTs (<i>n</i> = 20) informed the development of the final score report; revisions were made in response to feedback. Next, OTs and PTs (<i>n</i> = 33) reviewed score reports from two fictional clients and answered survey questions about the interpretation of the PEDI-PRO results. Additional questions evaluated clinical utility.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Focus groups: Visual cues supported score interpretation, but therapists requested additional explanations for advanced IRT measurement concepts. Survey: Therapists accurately interpreted foundational IRT concepts (e.g. identifying most/least difficult items, highest scores), but were less accurate when interpreting advanced concepts (e.g. fit, unexpected responses). Therapists anticipated sharing different components of the score report with family members, clinicians, and payers to support their clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The pilot PEDI-PRO score report was highly endorsed by therapists, but therapists may need additional training to interpret advanced IRT concepts.</p>","PeriodicalId":49138,"journal":{"name":"Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01942638.2024.2378064","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: Well-designed score reports can support therapists to accurately interpret assessments. We piloted a score report for the Pediatric Evaluation Disability Inventory-Patient Reported Outcome (PEDI-PRO) and evaluated: 1) To what extent can occupational and physical therapists (OT, PT) accurately interpret item-response theory (IRT)-based PEDI-PRO assessment results? 2) What is the perceived clinical utility of the pilot score report?

Methods: Exploratory, sequential mixed methods design. Focus groups with OT and PTs (n = 20) informed the development of the final score report; revisions were made in response to feedback. Next, OTs and PTs (n = 33) reviewed score reports from two fictional clients and answered survey questions about the interpretation of the PEDI-PRO results. Additional questions evaluated clinical utility.

Results: Focus groups: Visual cues supported score interpretation, but therapists requested additional explanations for advanced IRT measurement concepts. Survey: Therapists accurately interpreted foundational IRT concepts (e.g. identifying most/least difficult items, highest scores), but were less accurate when interpreting advanced concepts (e.g. fit, unexpected responses). Therapists anticipated sharing different components of the score report with family members, clinicians, and payers to support their clinical practice.

Conclusions: The pilot PEDI-PRO score report was highly endorsed by therapists, but therapists may need additional training to interpret advanced IRT concepts.

儿科残疾评估量表--患者报告结果(PEDI-PRO)评分报告的可解释性和临床实用性。
目的:设计良好的评分报告可帮助治疗师准确解释评估结果。我们试用了儿科评估残疾量表--患者报告结果(PEDI-PRO)的评分报告并进行了评估:1)职业治疗师和物理治疗师(OT、PT)能在多大程度上准确解释基于项目反应理论(IRT)的 PEDI-PRO 评估结果?2)试点评分报告的临床实用性如何?探索性、顺序性混合方法设计。与康复治疗师和康复护理师(n = 20)进行的焦点小组讨论为最终评分报告的制定提供了信息;根据反馈意见进行了修订。接下来,康复治疗师和康复护理师(n = 33)查看了两个虚构客户的评分报告,并回答了有关 PEDI-PRO 结果解释的调查问题。其他问题还对临床实用性进行了评估:焦点小组:结果:焦点小组:视觉提示支持分数解释,但治疗师要求对高级 IRT 测量概念进行额外解释。调查:治疗师准确解释了基础 IRT 概念(如识别最难/最不难的项目、最高分),但解释高级概念(如拟合、意外反应)时准确性较低。治疗师希望与家庭成员、临床医生和付款人分享评分报告的不同部分,以支持他们的临床实践:PEDI-PRO试行评分报告得到了治疗师的高度认可,但治疗师可能需要接受更多培训才能解释高级IRT概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
42
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: 5 issues per year Abstracted and/or indexed in: AMED; British Library Inside; Child Development Abstracts; CINAHL; Contents Pages in Education; EBSCO; Education Research Abstracts (ERA); Education Resources Information Center (ERIC); EMCARE; Excerpta Medica/EMBASE; Family and Society Studies Worldwide; Family Index Database; Google Scholar; HaPI Database; HINARI; Index Copernicus; Intute; JournalSeek; MANTIS; MEDLINE; NewJour; OCLC; OTDBASE; OT SEARCH; Otseeker; PEDro; ProQuest; PsycINFO; PSYCLINE; PubsHub; PubMed; REHABDATA; SCOPUS; SIRC; Social Work Abstracts; Speical Educational Needs Abstracts; SwetsWise; Zetoc (British Library); Science Citation Index Expanded (also known as SciSearch®); Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition; Social Sciences Citation Index®; Journal Citation Reports/ Social Sciences Edition; Current Contents®/Social and Behavioral Sciences; Current Contents®/Clinical Medicine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信