Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Body Functions

References

• van der Putten JMF, Hobart JC, Freeman JA, Thompson AJ. Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1999:66:480–484.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijkers M, Kropp GC, Esper RM, Yavuzer G, et al. Reporting on reliability and validity of outcome measures in medcial rehabilitation research. Disability and Rehabilita- tion 2002:24:819–827.
   Google Scholar
• Frytak J. Measurement. Journal of Rehabilitation Outcomes Measurement 2000:4:15–31.
   Google Scholar
• Andresen EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2000:81:S15–S20.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston MV, Keith RA, Hinderer SR. Measurement standards for interdisciplinary medical rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1992:73:3–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law M. Measurement in occupational therapy: Scientific criteria for evaluation. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy 1987:54:133–138.
   Google Scholar
• Teasell R, issue editor. Stroke Rehabilitation Evidence-Based Review: Part I. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 2003:10:1–78.
   Google Scholar
• Teasell R, ie. Stroke Rehabilitation Evidence-Based Review: Part II. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 2003:10:1–129.
   Google Scholar
• Jutai J, Teasell R. The necessity and limitations of evidence- based practice in stroke rehabilitation. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 2003:10:71–78.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Towards a Common Language for Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Finch E, Brooks D, Stratford PW, Mayo NE. Physical Rehabilitations Outcome Measures. A Guide to Enhanced Clinical Decision-Making. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Physiotherapy Association, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Stucki G, Ewert T, Cieza A. Value and application of the ICF in rehabilitation medicine. Disability and Rehabilitation 2003:25:628–634.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ustun TB, Chatterji S, Bickenbach J, Kostanjsek N, Schneider M. The International Classification of Function- ing, Disability and Health: a new tool for understanding disability and health. Disability and Rehabilitation 2003:25:565–571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brenner MH, Curbow B, Legro MW. The proximal-distal continuum of multiple health outcome measures: the case of cataract surgery. Medical Care 1995:33:AS236–244.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts L, Counsell R. Assessment of clinical outcomes in acute stroke trials. Stroke 1998:28:986–991.
   Google Scholar
• Torenbeek M, Caulfield B, Garrett M, van Harten W. Current use of outcome measures for stroke and low back pain rehabilitation in five European countries: first results of the ACROSS project. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 2001:24:95–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Wijck FMJ, Pandyan AD, Johnson GR, Barnes MP. Assessing motor deficits in neurological rehabilitation: patterns of instrument usage. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2001:15:23–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haigh R, Tennant A, Biering-Sorensen Grimby G, Marincek C, Phillips S, et al. The use of outcome measures in physical medicine and rehabilitation within Europe. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2001:33:278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders C, Egger M, Donovan J, Tallon D, Frankel S. Reporting on quality of life in randomized controlled trials: a bibiographic study. British Medical Journal 1998:317:1191–1194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan PW, Jorgensen HS, Wade DT. Outcome measures in acute stroke trials. A systematic review and some recommendations to improve practice. Stroke 2000:31: 1429–1438.
   Google Scholar
• Buck D, Jacoby A, Massey A, Ford G. Evaluation of Measures used to assess quality of life after stroke. Stroke 2000:31:2004–2010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A, Fitzpatrick R. Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. British Medical Journal 2002:324:1417–1422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granlund M, Eriksson L, Ylven R. Utility of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health’s parti- cipation dimension in assigning ICF codes to items from extant rating instruments. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2004:36:130–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cieza A, Brockow T, Ewert T, Amman E, Kollerits B, Chatterji S, et al. Linking health-status measurements to the International classification of functioning, disability and health. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2002:34:205–210.
   Google Scholar
• Law M. Evidence-based Rehabilitation. A Guide to Practice. Thorofare, NJ: Slack Press, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluation of patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment 1998:2:1–74.
   Google Scholar
• McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health. A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Lorentz WJ, Scanlan JM, Borson S. Brief screening tests for dementia. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 2002:47:723–733.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segal ME, Gillard M, Schall RR. Telephone and in-person proxy agreement between stroke patients and caregivers for the Functional Independence Measure. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1996:75:208–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, de Haan RJ, Limburg M. Assessing quality of life after stroke. The value and limitations of proxy ratings. Stroke 1997:28:1541–1549.
   Google Scholar
• Hachisuka K, Ogata H, Ohkuma H, Tanaka S, Dozono K. Test-retest and inter-method reliability of the self-rating Barthel Index. Clinical Rehabilitation 1997:11:28–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGinnis GE, Seward ML, DeJong G, Osberg S. Program evaluation of physical medicine and rehabilitaiton depar- temtns using self-report Barthel. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1986:67:125.
   Google Scholar
• Collen FM, Wade DT, Bradshaw CM. Mobility after stroke: reliability of measures of impairment and disability. Interna- tional Disabilities Studies 1990:12:6–9.
   Google Scholar
• Jorgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Vive-Larsen J, Stoier M, Olsen TS. Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke. Part II: time course of recovery. The Copenhagen stroke study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilita- tion 1995:76:406–412.
   Google Scholar
• Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Ahmed S, Gordon C, Higgins J, McEwen S, et al. Disablement following stroke. Disability and Rehabilitation 1999:21:258–268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg KO, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JL, Maki B. Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiotherapy Canada 1989:41:304–311.
   Google Scholar
• Salter K, Jutai J, Teasell R, et al. Issues for Selection of Outcome Measures in Stroke Rehabilitation: ICF Activities. Disability and Rehabilitation, In Press 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Gowland C, Stratford PW, Ward M, Moreland J, Torresin W, Van Hullenaar S, et al. Measuring physical impairment and disability with the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assess- ment. Stroke 1993:24:58–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF36) I: Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care 1992:30:473–483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, Johnson D, Embretson S, Laster LJ. The Stroke Impact Scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability validity and sensitivity to change. Stroke 1999:30:2131–2140.
   Google Scholar
• Williams LS, Weinberger M, Harris LE, Biller J. Measuring quality of life in a way that is meaningful to stroke patients. Neurology 1999:53:1839–1843.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salter K, Jutai J, Teasell R, et al. Issues for Selection of Outcome Measures in Stroke Rehabilitation: ICF Participa- tion. Disability and Rehabilitation, In Press, 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Beck AT, Ware CH, Mendelson M, Mock J, Erbaugh J. An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry 1961:4:561–571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck AT, Steer RA, Garbin MG. Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evalua- tion. Clinical Psychology Review 1988:8:77–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aben I, Verhey F, Lousberg R, Lodder J, Honig A. Validity of the Beck Depression Inventory, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, SCL-90 and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale as screening instruments for depression in stroke patients. Psychosomatics 2002:43:386–393.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient: I. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 1975:7:13–31.
   Google Scholar
• Gladstone DJ, Danells CJ, Black SE. The Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Motor Recovery after Stroke: A critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2002:16:232–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Twitchell TE. The restoration of motor function following hemiplegia. Brain 1951:74:443.
   Google Scholar
• Brunnstrom S. Motor testing procedures in hemiplegia. Journal of the American Physical Therapy Association 1966:46:357.
   Google Scholar
• Chae J, Labatia I, Yang G. Upper limb motor function in hemiparesis: concurrent validity of the Arm Motor Ability Test. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilita- tion 2003:82:1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan PW, Goldstein LB, Horner RD, Landsman PB. Similar motor recovery of upper and lower extremities after stroke. Stroke 1994:25:1181–1188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fugl-Meyer AR. Post-stroke hemiplegia assessment of physical properties. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 1980:7:85–93.
   Google Scholar
• Malouin F, Pichard L, Bonneau C, Durand A, Corriveau D. Evaluating motor recovery early after stroke: Comparison of the Fugl-Meyer assessment and the Motor Assessment Scale. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1994:75:1206–1212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poole JL, Whitney SL. Assessments of motor function post stroke: A review. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics 2001:19:1–22.
   Google Scholar
• van der Lee JH, Beckerman H, Lankhorst G, Bouter LM. The responsiveness of the Action Research Arm Test and the Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale in chronic stroke patients. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2001:33: 110–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mao HF, Hsueh IP, Tang PF, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. Analysis and comparison of the psychometric properties of three balance measures for stroke patients. Stroke 2002:33:1022–1027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research 1975:12:198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dick JPR, Builoff RJ, Stewart A, Blackstock J, Bielawska C, Paul EA, et al. Mini-mental State Examination in neurolo- gical patients. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1984:47:499.
   Google Scholar
• Tombaugh TN, McIntyre NJ. The Mini-Mental State Examination: A comprehensive review. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 1992:40:922–935.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teng EL, Chui HC. The modified Mini-Mental State (3MS) Examination. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 1987:48:314–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grace J, Nadler JD, White DA, Guilmette TJ, Giuliano AJ, Monsch AU, et al. Folstein vs. Modified Mini-Mental State Examination in geriatric stroke. Archives of Neurology 1995:52:477–484.
   Google Scholar
• Wade DT. Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Bleecker ML, Bolla-Wilson K, Kawas C, Agnew J. Age- specific norms for the Mini Mental State Examination. Neurology 1988:38:1565–1568.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agrell B, Dehlin O. Mini Mental State Examination in geriatric stroke patients. Validity, differences between sub- groups of patients, and relationships to somatic and mental variables. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research 2000:12:439–444.
   Google Scholar
• de Koning I, van Kooten F, Koudstaal PJ. Value of screening instruments int he diagnosis of post-stroke dementia. Haemostasis 1998:28:158–166.
   Google Scholar
• Suhr JA, Grace J. Brief cognitive screening of right hemi- sphere stroke: relation to functional outcome. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1999:80:773–776.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashworth B. Preliminary trial of carisoprodal in multiple sclerosis. Practitioner 1964:192:540–542.
   Google Scholar
• Pandyan AD, Johnson GR, Price CIM, Curless RH, Barnes MP, Rodgers H. A review of the properties and limitatons of the Ashworth and modified Ashworth scales as measures of spasticity. Clinical Rehabilitation 1999:13:373–383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandyan AD, Price CIM, Rodgers H, Barnes MP, Johnson GR. Biomechanical examination of a commonly used measure of spasticity. Clinical Biomechanics 2001:16:859–865.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damiano DL, Quinlivan JM, Owen BF, Payne P, Nelson KC, Abel MF. What does the Ashworth Scale really measure and are instrumented measures more valid and precise? Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 2002:44: 112–118.
   Google Scholar
• Pandyan AD, Price CIM, Barnes MP, Johnson GR. A biomechanical investigation into the validity of the modified Ashworth Scale as a measure of elbow spasticity. Clinical Rehabilitation 2003:17:290–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackburn M, van Vliet PMS. Reliability of measurements obtained with the Modified Ashworth Scale in the lower extremities of people with stroke. Physical Therapy 2002:82:25–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Inter rater reliability of a modified Ashwroth Scale of muscle spasticity. Physical Therapy 1987:67:206–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haas BM, Bergstrom E, Jamous A, Bennie A. The inter rater reliability of the original and of the modified Ashworth scale for the assessment of spasicity in patients with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 1996:34:560–564.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregson JM, Leathley M, Moore AP, Sharma AK, Smith TL, Watkins CL. Reliability of the Tone Assessment Scale and the Modified Ashworth Scale as clinical tool for assessing poststroke spasticity. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1999:1999:1013–1016.
   Google Scholar
• Gregson JM, Leathley M, Moore AP, Smith TL, et al. Reliability of measurement of muscle tone and muscle power in stroke patients. Age and Aging 2000:29:223–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colarusso RP, Hammill DD. Motor-free Visual Perception Test. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications, 1972.
   Google Scholar
• Su CY, Chang JJ, Chen HM, Su CJ, Chien TH, Huang MH. Perceptual differences between stroke patients with cerebral infarction and intracerebral hemorrhage. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2000:81:714.
   Google Scholar
• Mercier L, Desrosier J, Hebert R, Rochette A, Dubois MF. Normative data for the Motor-Free Visual Perception Test— Vertical. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics 2001:19:39–50.
   Google Scholar
• Bouska MJ, Kwatney E. Manual for the Application of the Motor-free Visual Perception Test to the Adult Population. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Rehabilitation Re- search and Training Centre, 1982.
   Google Scholar
• Brown GT, Rodger S, Davis A. Motor-free visual perception test—revised: an overview and critique. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 2003:66:159–167.
   Google Scholar
• Mazer BL, Korner-Bitensky N, Sofer S. Predicting ability to drive after stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1998:79:743–750.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier L, Hebert R, Gauthier L. Motor free visual perception test: impact of vertical answer cards position on performance of adults with hemispatial neglect. Occupa- tional Therapy Journal of Research 1995:15:223–226.
   Google Scholar
• Hseuh IP, Lee MM, Hsieh CL. Psychometric characteristics of the Barthel activities of daily living index in stroke patients. Journal of the Formosa Medical Association 2001:100:526–532.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe CDA, Taub NA, Woodrow EJ, Burney PGJ. Assess- ment of scales of disability and handicap for stroke patients. Stroke 1991:22:1242–1244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Freeman JA, Langdon DW, et al. Evidence-based measurement. Which disability scale for neurologic rehabilitation. Neurology 2001:57:644.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen MI, Marino RJ. The tools of disability outcomes research functional status measures. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2000:81:S21–S29.
   Google Scholar
• Riddle DL, Stratford PW. Interpreting validity indexes for diagnostic tests: an illustration using the Berg Balance Test. Physical Therapy 1999:79:939–948.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder AG, Stanley MA, Novy DM, Averill PM, Beck JG. Measures of depression in older adults with generalized anxiety disorder: a psychometric evaluation. Depression and Anxiety 2000:11:120.
   Google Scholar
• Helm HW, Boward MD. Factor structure of the Beck Depression Inventory in a university sample. Psychological Reports 2003:92:53–61.
   Google Scholar
• Desrosiers J, Noreau L, Rochette A, Bravo G, Boutin C. Predictors of handicap situations following post-stroke rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation 2002:24:774–785.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck AT, Beck RW. Screening depressed patients in family practice: A rapid technique. Postgraduate Medicine 1972:52:85.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan PW, Propst M, Nelson SG. Reliability of the Fugl- Meyer assessment of sensorimotor recovery following cere- brovascular accident. Physical Therapy 1983:63:1606–1610.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford J, Moreland J, Swanson LR, Stratford PW, Gowland C. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for testing motor performance in patients following stroke. Physical Therapy 1993:73:447–454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI, Shapiro SH. Examining outcome measures in a clinical study of stroke. Stroke 1990:21:731–739.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dettman MA, Linder MT, Sepic SB. Relationships among walking performance, postural stability and functional assessments of the hemiplegic patient. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1987:66:77–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poole JL, Whitney SL. Motor Assessment Scale for stroke patients: concurrent validity and interrater reliability. Ar- chives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1988:69: 195–197.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan PW, Goldstein LB, Matchar D, Divine GW, Feussner J. Measurement of motor recovery after stroke: outcome assessment and sample size requirements. Stroke 1992:23:1084–1089.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shelton F, Volpe BT, Reding M. Motor impairment as a predictor of functional recovery and guide to rehabilitation treatment after stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2001:15:237.
   Google Scholar
• Bernspang B, Asplund K, Eriksson S, Fugl-Meyer AR. Motor and perceptual impairments in acute stroke patients: effects on self-care ability. Stroke 1987:18:1081–1086.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molloy DW, Standish TIM. A guide to the standardized Mini Mental State Examination. International Psychoger- iatrics 1997:9:87–94.
   Google Scholar
• Ozdemir F, Birtane M, Tabatabaei R, Ekuklu G, Kokino S. Cognitive evaluation and functional outcome after stroke. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2001:80:410–415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allison SC, Abraham LD, Peterson CL. Reliability of the Modified Ashworth Scale in the assessment of plantarflexor muscle spasticity in patients with traumatic brain injury. Journal of International Rehabilitation Research 1996:19: 67–78.
   Google Scholar
• Sloan RL, Sinclair E, Thompson J, Taylor S, Pentland B. Inter-rater reliability of the modified Ashworth Scale for spasticity in hemiplegic patients. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 1992:15:161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nuyens G, de Weerdt W, Ketelaer P, Feys H, De Wolf L, Hantson L, et al. Inter-rater reliability of the Ashworth Scale in multiple sclerosis. Clinical Rehabilitation 1994:8:286–292.
   Google Scholar
• Brashear A, Zafone R, Corcoran M, Glavez-Jimenez N, Gracies JM, Gordon MF, et al. Inter and intrarater reliability of the disability assessment scale in patients with upper limb post-stroke spasticity. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2002:83:1349–1354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee KC, Carson L, Kinnin E, Patterson V. The Ashworth Scale: A reliable and reproducible method of measuring spasticity. Journal of Neurological Rehabilitation 1989:3: 205–209.
   Google Scholar
• Cate Y, Richards L. Relationship between performance on tests of basic visual functions and visual-perceptual proces- sing in persons after brain injury. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 2000:54:326–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korner-Bitensky N, Mazer BL, Sofer S, Gelina I, Meyer MB, Morrison C, et al. Visual testing for readiness to drive after stroke: a multicenter study. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2000:79:259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• York CD, Cermak SA. Visual perception and praxis in adults after stroke. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 1995:49:550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colarusso RP, Hammill DD. Motor-free Visual Perception Test–revised. Novato CA: Academic Therapy Publications, 1996.
   Google Scholar
• House A, Dennism M, Mogridge L, Warlow C, Hawton K, Jones L. Mood disorders in the year after first stroke. The British Journal of Psychiatry 1991:158:83–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar