Ariel Schwartz, Fiorella Guerrero Calle, Elizabeth Barbour, Andrew Persch, Beth Pfeiffer, Daniel K Davies, Erik J Mugele, Jessica Kramer
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Interpretability and Clinical Utility of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory - Patient Reported Outcome (PEDI-PRO) Score Report.
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.
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