Skip Navigation LinksHome > Summer 2012 - Volume 24 - Issue 2 > Commentary on “Concurrent Validity and Reliability of the Pe...
Pediatric Physical Therapy:
doi: 10.1097/PEP.0b013e31824d8d9c
Clinical Bottom Line

Commentary on “Concurrent Validity and Reliability of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory-Computer Adaptive Test Mobility Domain”

Redman-Bentley, Donna PT, PhD; Armstrong, Dayle C. PT, MS, DPT

Free Access
Collapse Box

Author Information

Western University of Health Sciences Pomona, California

Western University of Health Sciences Pomona, California

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

“How should I apply this information?”

The Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory-Computer Adaptive Test (PEDI-CAT) expands the original PEDI Functional Skills (FS) test to cover ages from birth to 20 years, allowing therapists to track progress throughout childhood. The authors indicate that the new version can be used to assess children with a variety of disabilities. The instrument can be administered quickly using a minimal number of customized items in any setting where a computer is available. The new responsibility domain may prove a more effective measure of the child's capability and performance than the caregiver assistance scale used in the original PEDI FS, but this study was restricted to examination of the mobility domain. A strong correlation between the measures provides therapists an opportunity to continue tracking progress past 7½ years for children initially assessed on the PEDI FS.

“What should I be mindful about in applying this information?”

The reader needs to keep in mind that a small sample size may result in a biased estimate of a population value. Although the authors demonstrate a good to excellent association between both measures on 5 of 8 items, this may not be the case in a larger sample population. A second concern is that only 8 items were compared, which may not provide adequate item sampling to determine concurrent validity. Another purpose of this study was to determine the worthiness of the measure for assessing children with various disabilities; however, only small numbers of children representing some of the disabilities were assessed. Further research is needed on larger samples of each disability. A third concern is the different point scales used in the 2 measures. Is it feasible to combine unable and hard in the PEDI-CAT and consider those categories equal to unable in the PEDI FS? Larger sample sizes should be studied to confirm the results of this preliminary evidence. Overall, the authors should be commended for developing an instrument that can be used beyond 7.5 years of age and one that keeps up with modern technology.

Donna Redman-Bentley, PT, PhD

Western University of Health Sciences

Pomona, California

Dayle C. Armstrong, PT, MS, DPT

Western University of Health Sciences

Pomona, California

© 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Login

Article Tools

Share

Follow PED-PT on Twitter