Optimizing Oxford Shoulder Scores with computerized adaptive testing reduces redundancy while maintaining precision

Abstract

AimsThe Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) is a 12-item measure commonly used for the assessment of shoulder surgeries. This study explores whether computerized adaptive testing (CAT) provides a shortened, individually tailored questionnaire while maintaining test accuracy.MethodsA total of 16,238 preoperative OSS were available in the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, and the States of Guernsey dataset (April 2012 to April 2022). Prior to CAT, the foundational item response theory (IRT) assumptions of unidimensionality, monotonicity, and local independence were established. CAT compared sequential item selection with stopping criteria set at standard error (SE) < 0.32 and SE < 0.45 (equivalent to reliability coefficients of 0.90 and 0.80) to full-length patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) precision.ResultsConfirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for unidimensionality exhibited satisfactory fit with root mean square standardized residual (RSMSR) of 0.06 (cut-off ≤ 0.08) but not with comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.85 or Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) of 0.82 (cut-off > 0.90). Monotonicity, measured by H value, yielded 0.482, signifying good monotonic trends. Local independence was generally met, with Yen’s Q3 statistic > 0.2 for most items. The median item count for completing the CAT simulation with a SE of 0.32 was 3 (IQR 3 to 12), while for a SE of 0.45 it was 2 (IQR 2 to 6). This constituted only 25% and 16%, respectively, when compared to the 12-item full-length questionnaire.ConclusionCalibrating IRT for the OSS has resulted in the development of an efficient and shortened CAT while maintaining accuracy and reliability. Through the reduction of redundant items and implementation of a standardized measurement scale, our study highlights a promising approach to alleviate time burden and potentially enhance compliance with these widely used outcome measures.Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(8):392–400.