Advanced search
Publication Cover
Disability and Rehabilitation Volume 22, 2000 - Issue 16
Submit an article Journal homepage
920
Views
102
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Parallel reliability of the Functional Independence Measure and the Barthel ADL index

Gunilla Gosman-Hedström Division of Health and Caring Sciences, Department of Rehabilitation, Göteborg University, Sweden; Institute of Clinical Neuroscience, Department of Neurology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg University, Sweden
&
Elisabeth Svensson Division of Health and Caring Sciences, Department of Rehabilitation, Göteborg University, Sweden; Biostatistics Branch, Mathematical Statistics, Chalmers and Göteborg University, Sweden
Pages 702-715 | Published online: 07 Jul 2009

  • Kirsliner B. Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1985: 38: 27-36.
  • Feinstein AR. Josephy BR. Wells CK. Scientific and clinical problems in indexes of functional disability. Annals of Internal Medicine 1986: I OS: 413-420.
  • Bowling A. Measuring Disease. A Review of Disease-specific Quality oj Life Measurement Scales. Philadelphia: Open University Press. 1995.
  • Law M. Letts L. A critical review of scales of activities of daily living. Tlic American Journal of Occupational Therapy 1989: 43: 522-528.
  • Fisher AG. Functional measures, part 1: what is function, what should we measure and how should we measure it? The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 1992: 46: 183-185.
  • Sonn U. Grimhy. G. Activities of daily living studied longitudinally between 70 and 76 years of age. Disability and Rehabilitation 1996: 18:91-100.
  • Yerxa B. Seeking a relevant, ethical and realistic way of knowing for occupational therapy. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 1991: 45: 199-204.
  • Trombly C. Anticipating the future: assessment of occupational function. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 1993 : 47: 253-257.
  • Unsworth CA. The concept of function. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 1993: 56: 287-292.
  • Törnquist K. Verifying and measuring the ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL). dissertation in Swedish. Goteborg: Göteborg University. 1995.
  • Fisher AG. Functional measures, part 2: selecting the right test, minimizing the limitations. The American Journal oj Occupational Therapy 1992: 46: 278-281.
  • Eakin P. Assessments of activities of daily living. A critical review. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 1989: 52: 11-15.
  • Eakin P. Problems with assessments of activities of daily living. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 1989: 52: 50-54.
  • Svensson E. Analyses of systematic and random differencesbetween paired ordinal categorical data, dissertation. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. 1993.
  • Mahoney FI. Bart he 1 DW. Functional evaluation: The Barthel index. Maryland State Medical Journal 1965: 14: 61-65.
  • Fricke J. Unsworth CA. Inter-rater reliability of the original and modified Barthel index and a comparison with the Functional Independence Measure. The Australian Occupational Therapy Journal 1996: 43: 22-29.
  • Wade DT. Skilbeck CE. Langton Hewer R. Predicting Barthel ADL Score at 6 months after an acute stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation 1983: 64: 24-28.
  • Granger CV. Hamilton BB. Gresham, GE. The stroke rehabilitation outcome study-pail 1: general description. Archives oj Physical Medicine Rehabilitation 1988: 69: 506-509.
  • Hamilton BB. Granger CV. Sherwin FS. Zielezny M, Tashman JS. A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer MJ (ed.) Rehabilitation Outcomes: Analysis and Measurements. Baltimore: Md. Brookes. 1987: 137-147.
  • Granger CV. Cotter AC, Hamilton BB. Fiedler RC. Hens MM. Functional assessment scales: a study of persons with multiple sclerosis. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation 1990: 71: 870-875.
  • Chau N, Daler S, Andre JM, Patris A. Inter-rater agreement of two functional independence scales: the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and a subjective uniform continuous scale. Disability ami Rehabilitation 1994: 16: 63-71.
  • Hamilton B, Lauglilin JA. Fiedler RC. Granger CV. Interrater reliability of the 7-level Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Scandinavian Journal oj Rehabilitation Medicine 1994: 26: 115-119.
  • Ottenbacher KJ. Mann WC. Granger CV. Tomita M. Hurren D, Charvat B. Inter-rater agreement and stability of functional assessment in the community-based elderly. Archivex of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation 1994:75: 1297-1301.
  • Segal ME. Ditunno JF. Staas WE. Intel-institutional agreement of individual functional independence measure (FIM ) items measured at two sites on the sample of SCI patients. Paraplegia 1993: 31: 622-631.
  • Dodds TA. Martin DP. Stolov WC. Deyo RA. A validation of the Functional Independence Measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Archivex of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation 1993: 74: 531-536.
  • Kidd D. Stewart G. Baldry J. Johnsson J. Rossiter D. Petruckevitch A. Thomson AJ. The Functional Independence Measure: a comparative validity and reliability study. Disability and Rehabilitation 1995: 17: 10-14.
  • Brousseau L. Wolfson C. The inter-rater reliability and construct validity of the Functional Independence Measure for multiple sclerosis subjects. Clinical Rehabilitation 1994: 8: 107-115.
  • Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman and Hall. 1996.
  • Merbitz C. Morris J. Grip JC. Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. Archivex oj Physical Medicine Rehabilitation 1989: 70: 308-312.
  • Silverstein B. Kilgore KM. Fisher WP. Harley JP, Harvey RF. Applying psychometric criteria to functional assesssment in medical rehabilitation: I. Exploring unidimensionality. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation 1991 : 72: 631-637.
  • Wade DT. Measurement in Neurological Rehabilitation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1992.
  • Svensson E. Order consistency between ratings using different scales for the same variable. Mathematical statistics. Chalmers University of Technology. Göteborg University, 1999.
  • Hamilton BB. Granger CV. Disability outcomes following inpatient rehabilitation for stroke. Physical Therapy 1994: 74: 494-503.
  • Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD. Granger CV. Hamilton BB. The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure. Archives of Physcal Medicine Rehabilitation 1994: 75: 127-132.
  • Grimby G. Thylander G. Guide for Use of the Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation. Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo. Swedish version, September. 1991.
  • Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S. Home V. The Barthel ADL index: a reliability study. International Disability Studies 1988: 10: 61-63.
  • Fricke J. Unsworth C. Worrell D. Reliability of the Functional IndependenceMeasure with occupational therapists. The Australian Occupational Therapy Journal 1993: 40: 7-15.
  • Brousseau L, Pierre P. Boulanger YL. The Functional Independence Measure: validy of selected assessment methods applied to stroke survivors. Tuples in Geriatrie Rehabilitation 1995: 11: 75-86.
  • Granger CV. Cotter AC. Hamilton BB. Fiedler RC. Functional assessment scales: a study of persons after stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation 1993: 74: 133-138.
  • Guyatt GH. Deyo RA. Charlson M. Levine MN. Mitchell A. Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1989: 42: 403-408.
  • Pollak N. Rheault W. Stoecker JL. Reliability and validity of the FlM for persons aged 80 years and above from a multilevel continuing care retirement community. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation 1996:77: 1056-1061.
  • Grimhy G. Andren E. Holmgren E. Wright B. Linacre JM. Sundh V. Structure of a combination of Functional Independence Measure and Instrumental Activity Measure items in community-living persons: a study of individuals with cerebral palsy and spina bifida. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation 1996: 77: 1109-1114.
  • Shah S. Vanclay F. Cooper B. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1989: 42: 703-709.
  • Granger CV. Hamilton BB. Gresham GE. Kramer AA. The stroke rehabilitation outcome study: part II. Relative merits of the total Barthel index score and a four-item suhscore in predicting patient outcomes. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation 1989: 70: 100-103.
  • Barer DH. Scaling the Barthel: a 10-point hierarchical version of the activities of daily living index for use with stroke patients. Clinical Rehabilitation 1993: 7: 271-277.
  • EHuI J. Watkins C, Barer D. Estimating total Barthel scores from just three items. The European Stroke Database ' minimum da laset for assessing functional status at discharge from hospital. Age and Ageing 1998: 27: 115-122.
  • Grimhy G. Finnstam. 1, Jette A. On the application of the WHO classification in rehabilitation. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 1988: 20: 93-98.
  • Badley EM. An introduction to the concepts and classifications of the international classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. Disability and Rehabilitation 1993: IS: 161-178.
  • Nordenfelt L. On the notions of disability and handicap. Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare 1993: 2: 17-24.
  • Verhrugge LM. Jette AM. The disablement process. Social Science and Medicine 1994: 38: 1-14.
  • World Health Organization. International Classification of Impairments. Disabilities and Handicaps: A Manual of Classification Relating to Consequences of Disease. Geneva: World Health Organization. 1980.
  • Nagi SZ. Some conceptual issues in disability and rehabilitation. In: Sussman MB (ed.) Sociology and Rehabilitation. Washington DC: American Sociological Association. 1965: 100-113.
  • Avlund K. Methodological challenges in measurements of functional ability in gerontological research. A review. Ageing 1997: 9: 164-174.
  • Sonn U. Svensson E. Measures of individual and group changes in ordered categorical data : Application to the ADL staircase. Scandinavian Journal oj Rehabilitation Medicine 1997: 29: 233-242.
  • Svensson E. Ordinal invariant measures for individual and group changes in ordered categorical data. Statistics in Medicine 1998: 17: 2923-2936.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.