Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF activity

References

• van der Putten JMF, Hobart JC, Freeman JA, Thompson AJ. Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilita- tion: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1999; 66: 480–484.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijkers M, Kropp GC, Esper RM, Yavuzer G, et al. Reporting on reliability and validity of outcome measures in medical rehab-ilitation research. Disability and Rehabilita- tion 2002; 24: 819–827.
   Google Scholar
• Frytak J. Measurement. Journal of Rehabilitation OutcomesMeasurement 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. Ar- chives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1992; 73: 3–23.
   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: 1–1.
   Google Scholar
• Teasell R, issue editor. 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-
   Google Scholar
• 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
• 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–AS244.
   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 Rehabilita- tion Research 2001; 24: 95–101.
   PubMed 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.
   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.
   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.
   PubMed 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.
   Google Scholar
• Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A, Fitzpatrick R. Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ 2002; 324: 1417–1422.
   Google Scholar
• Stucki G, Ewert T, Cieza A. Value and application of the ICF in rehabilitation medicine. Disability and Rehabilita- tion 2003; 25: 628–634.
   Google Scholar
• Granlund M, Eriksson L, Ylven R. Utility of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health’s participation dimension in assigning ICF codes to items from extant rating instruments. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2004; 36: 130–137.
   PubMed 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. J Rehabil Med 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed 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.
   PubMed 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.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collen FM, Wade DT, Bradshaw CM. Mobility after stroke: reliability of measures of impairment and disability. International 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.
   Google Scholar
• Jette AM, Haley SM, Kooyoomjian JT. Are the ICF activity and participation dimensions distinct? Journal of Rehabili- tation Medicine 2003; 35: 145–149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiteneck G. Conceptual and definitional issues in post-
   Google Scholar
• acute care outcomes assessment. Paper Presented at the Outcomes Research in Post-Acute Care: The Intersection of Science, Policy and Practice Conference. Washington, DC.
   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.
   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.
   Google Scholar
• Salter K, Jutai J, Teasell R, et al. Issues for Selection of Outcome Measures in Stroke Rehabilitation: ICF Partici- pation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 2005; 27: 313–340.
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional Evaluation: The Barthel Index. Maryland State Medical Journal 1965;14: 61– 65.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Horne V. The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. International Disabilities Studies 1988; 10: 61–63.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan PW, Samsa G, Weinberger M, Goldstein L, Bonito A, Witter DM, et al. Health status of individuals with mild stroke. Stroke 1997; 28: 740–745.
   Google Scholar
• Granger CV, Devis LS, Peters MC, Sherwood CC, et al. Stroke rehabilitation: analysis of repeated Barthel index measures. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1979; 60: 14–17.
   Google Scholar
• Sulter G, Steen C, deKeyser J. Use of the Barthel Index and Modified Rankin Scale in acute stroke trials. Stroke 1999; 30: 1538–1541.
   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
• Berg KO, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JL. The BalanceScale: Reliability assessment with elderly residents and patients with acute stroke. Scandinavian Journal of Reha- bilitation Medicine 1995; 27: 27–36.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Juneja G, Czyrny JJ, Linn RT. Admission balance andoutcomes of patients admitted for acute inpatient rehabili- tation. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1998; 77: 388–393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg KO, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JL, Maki B. Measuring balance in the elderly: validation of an instru- ment. Canadian Journal of Public Health 1992; 83: S7– S11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwick D, Rochelle A, Choksi A, Domowicz J. Evaluationand treatment of balance in the elderly: A review of the efficacy of the Berg Balance Test and Tai Chi Quan. Neurorehabilitation 2000; 15: 49–56.
   Google Scholar
• Whitney SL, Poole JL, Cass SP. A review of balance
   Google Scholar
• instruments for older adults. American Journal of Occupa- tional Therapy 1998; 52: 666–671.
   Google Scholar
• Nakamura D, Holm M, Wilson A. Measures of balance and fear of falling in the elderly: A review. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics 1998; 15: 17–32.
   Google Scholar
• Wee JYM, Bagg SD, Palepu A. The Berg Balance Scale as a predictor of length of stay and discharge in an acute stroke rehabilitation setting. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1999; 80: 448–452.
   Google Scholar
• Wee JYM, Wong H, Palepu A. Validation of the Berg Balance Scale as a predictor of length of stay and discharge destination in stroke rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2003; 84: 731–735.
   Google Scholar
• Mao HF, Hsueh IP, Tang PF, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL.
   Google Scholar
• Analysis and comparison of the psychometric properties of three balance measures for stroke patients. Stroke 2002;33: 1022 – 1027.
   Google Scholar
• Gowland C, Stratford PW, Ward M, Moreland J, Torresin
   Google Scholar
• W, Van Hullenaar S, et al. Measuring physical impairment and disability with the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assess- ment. Stroke 1993; 24: 58–63.
   Google Scholar
• Gowland C, Van Hullenaar S, Torresin W, Moreland J, et al. Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment. Development, Validation and Administration Manual. Hamilton, Ontario: Chedoke-McMaster Hospitals and McMaster University, 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Cole B, Finch E, Gowland C, Mayo N. Physical Rehabilita- tion Outcome Measures. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Physical Therapy Association, 1994.
   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
• Valach L, Signer S, Hartneier A, Hofer K, Steck GC. Chedoke-McMaster stroke assessment and modified Barthel Index self-assessment in patients with vascular brain damage. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 2003; 26: 93–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD, Granger CV, Hamilton BB. The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1994; 75: 127–127.
   Google Scholar
• Granger CV, Cotter AC, Hamilton BB, Fiedler RC. Functional Assessment Scales: a study of persons after stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1993; 74: 133–138.
   Google Scholar
• Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Freeman JA, Langdon DW, McLellan DL, Greenwood RJ, et al. Evidence-based measurement. Which disability scale for neurologic rehabi- litation? Neurology 2001;57:644.
   Google Scholar
• Cavanagh SJ, Hogan K, Gordon V, Fairfax J. Stroke- specific FIM models in an urban population. Journal of Neurological Nursing 2000; 32: 17–21.
   Google Scholar
• Kidd D, Stewart G, Baldry J, Johnson J, Rossiter D, Petruckevitch A, et al. The Functional Independence Measure: a comparative validity and reliability study. Disability and Rehabilitation 1995; 17: 10–14.
   Google Scholar
• Gosman-Hedstrom G, Svensson E. Parallel reliability of the Functional Independence Measure and the Barthel ADL Index. Disability and Rehabilitation 2000; 22: 702–715.
   Google Scholar
• Hsueh IP, Lin JH, Jeng JS, Hsieh CL. Comparison of the psychometric characteristics of the Functional Indepen- dence Measure, 5-item Barthel index and 10-item Barthel Index in patients with stroke. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 2002; 73: 188–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fiedler RC. The reliability of the Functional Independence Measure: A quantitative review. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1996; 77: 1226–1232.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace D, Duncan PW, Lai SM. Comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the motor component of the Functional Independence Measure in stroke: the impact of using different methods for measuring reponsiveness. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2002;55: 922– 928.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holbrook M, Skilbeck CE. An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age and Aging 1983; 12: 166–170.
   Google Scholar
• Wade DT, Leigh-Smith J, Langton-Hewer R. Social activities after stroke: measurement and natual history using the Frenchay Activities Index. International Rehabilitation Medicine 1985; 1: 176–181.
   Google Scholar
• Segal ME, Schall RR. Determining funcitonal/health status and its relation to disability in stroke survivors. Stroke 1994; 25: 2391–2397.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wade DT. Measurement in Neurological Rehabilitation.New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Piercy M, Carter J, Mant J, Wade DT. Inter-rater reliability of the Frenchay Activities Index in patients with stroke and their carers. Clinical Rehabilitation 2000; 14: 433–440.
   Google Scholar
• Green J, Forster A, Young I. A test-retest reliability study of the Barthel Index, the Rivermead Mobility Index, the Nottingham extended activities of daily living scale and the Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients. Disability and Rehabilitation 2001; 23: 670–676.
   Google Scholar
• Rankin J. Cerebral vascular accidents in patients over the age of 60 II: prognosis. Scottish Medical Journal 1957; 2: 200–215.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJA, van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 1988; 19: 604–607.
   Google Scholar
• Bamford JM, Sandercock P, Warlow CP, Slattery J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients (letter). Stroke 1989;20:828.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Haan RJ, Limburg M, Bossuyt P, van der Meulen J, Aaronson NK. The clinical meaning of Rankin ‘handicap’ grades after stroke. Stroke 1995; 26: 2027–2030.
   Google Scholar
• Wolfe CDA, Taub NA, Woodrow EJ, Burney PGJ.
   Google Scholar
• Assessment of scales of disability and handicap for stroke patients. Stroke 1991; 22: 1242–1244.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson JT, Hareendran A, Grant M, Baird T, et al. Improving the assessment of outcomes in stroke: Use of structured interview to assign grades on the Modified Rankin Scale. Stroke 2002; 33: 2243–2246.
   Google Scholar
• Shapero Sabari J. Motor Recovery After Stroke. In: J Van Deusen, D Brunt, (eds) Assessment in Occupational Therapy and Physical Therapy. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:
   Google Scholar
• W.B. Saunders Co., 1997; pp 249–293.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln N, Leadbitter D. Assessment of motor function in stroke patients. Physiotherapy 1979; 65: 48–51.
   Google Scholar
• Collin C, Wade DT. Assessing motor impairment after stroke: a pilot reliability study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1990; 53: 576–579.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams SA, Ashburn A, Pickering RM, Taylor D. The scalability of the Rivermead Motor Assessment in acute stroke patients. Clinical Rehabilitation 1997; 11: 42–51.
   Google Scholar
• Adams SA, Pickering RM, Ashburn A, Lincoln NB. The scalability of the Rivermead Motor Assessment in nonacute stroke patients. Clinical Rehabilitation 1997; 11: 52–59.
   Google Scholar
• Endres M, Nyary I, Banhidi M, Deak G. Stroke rehabilita-tion: a method and evaluation. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 1990; 13: 225–236.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Collen FM, Wade DT, Robb GF, Bradshaw CM. The Rivermead Mobility Index: A further development of the Rivermead Motor Assessment. Int Disabil Stud 1991;13: 50– 54.
   Google Scholar
• Forlander DA, Bohannon RW. Rivermead Mobility Index: a brief review of research to date. Clinical Rehabilitation 1999; 13: 97–100.
   Google Scholar
• Hsueh IP, Wang CH, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. Comparison of psychometric properties of three mobility measures for patients with stroke. Stroke 2003; 34: 1741–1745.
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh CL, Hsueh IP, Mao HF. Validity and responsiveness of the Rivermead Mobility Index in stroke patients. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2000;32: 140– 142.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Franchignoni F, Tesio L, Benevolo E, Ottonello M. Psychometric properties of the Rivermead Mobility Index in Italian stroke rehabilitation inpatients. Clinical Rehabi- litation 2003; 17: 273–282.
   Google Scholar
• Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed ‘‘Up and Go’’ test. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1989;67: 387– 398.
   Google Scholar
• Mathias S, Nayak USL, Isaacs B. Balance in elderly patients: the ‘‘Get up and Go’’ test. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1986; 67: 387–389.
   Google Scholar
• Rockwood K, Awalt E, Carver D, MacKnight C. Feasibility and measurement properties of the Functional Reach and the timed Up and Go tests in the Canadian study of health and aging. Journal of Gerontology 2000;55A:M70 – M73.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thompson M, Medley A. Performance of community dwelling elderly on the Timed Up and Go Test. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics 1995; 13: 17–30.
   Google Scholar
• Siggeirsdottir K, Jonsson BY, Jonsson H Jr, Iwarsson S. The Timed ‘‘Up and Go’’ is dependent on chair type. Clinical Rehabilitation 2002; 16: 609–616.
   Google Scholar
• Hsueh IP, Lee MM, Hsieh CL. Psychometric character- istics of the Barthel activities of daily living index in stroke patients. Journal of the Formosa Medical Association 2001; 100: 526–532.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
   Google Scholar
• diagnostic tests: an illustration using the Berg Balance Test. Physical Therapy 1999; 79: 939–948.
   Google Scholar
• Collin C, Davies S, Horne V, Wade DT. Reliability of the Barthel ADL Index. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 1987; 10: 356–357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Olhberriague L, Litvan I, Mitsias P, Mansbach HH. A reappraisal of reliability and validity studies in stroke. Stroke 1996; 27: 2331–2236.
   Google Scholar
• Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1989; 42: 703–709.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fortinsky RH, Granger CV, Seltzer GB. The use of functional assessment in understanding home care needs. Medical Care 1981; 19: 489–497.
   Google Scholar
• Shah S, Cooper B, Maas F. The Barthel Index and ADL
   Google Scholar
• evaluation in stroke rehabilitation in Australia, Japan, the US and the USA. The Australian Occupational Therapy Journal 1992; 39: 5–13.
   Google Scholar
• Agrell B, Dehlin O. Mini Mental State Examination in geriatric stroke patients. Validity, differences between subgroups of patients, and relationships to somatic and mental variables. Aging Clinical Experimental Research 2000; 12: 439–444.
   Google Scholar
• Hocking C, Williams M, Broad J, Baskett J. Sensitivity of Shah, Vanclay and Cooper’s Modified Barthel Index. Clinical Rehabilitation 1999; 13: 141–147.
   Google Scholar
• Cup EHC, Scholte op Reimer WJM, Thijssen MCE, van Kuyk-Minis MAH. Reliability and validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in stroke patients. Clinical Rehabilitation 2003; 17: 402–402.
   Google Scholar
• Hobart JC, Thompson AJ. The five item Barthel Index.
   Google Scholar
• Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 2001; 71:225–230.
   Google Scholar
• Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI, Shapiro SH. Examining
   Google Scholar
• outcome measures in a clinical study of stroke. Stroke 1990; 21:731–739.
   Google Scholar
• Wood-Dauphinee S, Berg KO, Bravo G, Williams JL. The Balance Scale: responsiveness to clinically meaningful changes. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation 1997;10: 35– 50.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stone SP, Ali B, Auberleek I, Thompsell A, Young A. The Barthel Index in clinical practice: use on a rehabilitation ward for elderly people. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 1994; 28: 419–423.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dromerick AW, Edwards DF, Diringer MN. Sensitivity to changes in disability after stroke: A comparison of four scales useful in clinical trials. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 2003; 40: 1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anaemaet WK. Using standardized measures to meet the
   Google Scholar
• challenge of stroke assessment. Topics in Geriatric Reha- bilitation 2002; 18: 47–62.
   Google Scholar
• Yeo D, Faleiro R, Lincoln NB. Barthel ADL Index: a comparison of administration methods. Clinical Rehabilita- tion 1995; 9: 34–39.
   Google Scholar
• Korner-Bitensky N, Wood-Dauphinee S. Barthel informa- tion elicited over the telephone. Is it reliable? American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1995; 74: 9–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinar D, Gross CR, Bronstein KS, Licata-Gehr EE, Eden DT, Cabrera AR, et al. Reliability of the activities of daily living scale and its use in telephone interview. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1987; 68: 723–728.
   Google Scholar
• Dorevitch MI, Cossar RM, Bailey FJ, Bisset T, Lewis SJ, Wise LA, et al. The accuracy of self and informant ratings of physical functional capacity in the elderly. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1992; 45: 791–798.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogle-Thorbahn DB, Newton RA. Use of the Berg Balance Test to predict falls in elderly persons. Physical Therapy 1996; 76: 576–583.
   Google Scholar
• Liston R, Brouwer BJ. Reliability and validity of measures obtained from stroke patients using the balance master. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1996;77: 425– 430.
   Google Scholar
• Berg KO, Maki B, Williams JL, Holliday PJ, Wood- Dauphinee S. Clinical and laboratory measures of postural balance in an elderly population. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1992; 73: 1073–1080.
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson TJ. Detecting change in patients with stroke using the Berg Balance Scale. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 2001; 47: 29–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Au-Yeung SSY, Ng JTW, Lo SK. Does balance or motor impairment of limbs discriminate the ambulatory status of stroke survivors? American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2003; 82: 279–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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.
   Google Scholar
• Shumway-Cook A, Baldwin M, Polissar NL, Gruber W. Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults. Physical Therapy 1997;79:819.
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson TJ. Using impairment inventory scores to determine ambulation status in individuals with stroke. Physiotherapy Canada 1999; 51: 168–174.
   Google Scholar
• Dodds TA, Martin DP, Stolov WC, Deyo R. A validation of the Functional Independence Measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1993; 74: 531–536.
   Google Scholar
• Oczkowski W, Barreca S. The Functional Independence
   Google Scholar
• Measure: Its use to identify rehabilitation needs in stroke survivors. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1993; 74: 1291–1294.
   Google Scholar
• Ring H, Feder M, Schwartz J, Samuels G. Functional measures of first-stroke rehabilitation inpatients: Usefulness of the Functional Independence Measure total score with a clinical rationale. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1997; 78: 630–635.
   Google Scholar
• Brock JA, Goldie PA, Greenwood KM. Evaluating the effectiveness of stroke rehabilitation: choosing a discrimi- native measure. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2002; 83: 92–99.
   Google Scholar
• Smith PM, Bennett Illig S, Fielder RC, Hamilton BB, et al. Intermodal agreement of follow-up telephone funcitonal assessment using the funcitonal independence measure in patients with stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1996; 77: 431–435.
   Google Scholar
• Daving Y, Andren E, Nordholm L, Grimby G. Reliability of an interview approach to the Functional Independence Measure. Clinical Rehabilitation 2001;15:310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrella RJ, Overend T, Chesworth B. FIM after hip fracture: Is telephone administration valid and sensitive to change? American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2002; 81: 639–644.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan PW, Reker DM, Horner RD, Samsa G, Hoenig H, LaClair BJ, et al. Performance of a mail-administered version of a stroke-specific outcome measure: the Stroke Impact Scale. Clinical Rehabilitation 2002;16:505.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing
   Google Scholar
• agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet 1986;Feb 8: 307–310.
   Google Scholar
• Schuling J, de Haan RJ, Limburg M, Groenier KH. The Frenchay Activities Index; assessment of functional status in stroke patients. Stroke 1993; 24: 1173–1177.
   Google Scholar
• Carter J, Mant F, Wade DT, Winner S. Comparison of the postal version of the Frenchay Activities Index with interviewer-administered version for use in people with stroke. Clinical Rehabilitation 1997; 11: 131–138.
   Google Scholar
• Wyller TB, Sveen U, Bautz-Holter E. The Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients: agreement between scores by patients and by relatives. Disability and Rehabi- litation 1996; 18: 454–459.
   Google Scholar
• Sackley CJ, Lincoln NB. The verbal administration of the gross functional scale of the Rivermead Motor Assessment. Clinical Rehabilitation 1990;4:303.
   Google Scholar
• Rossier P, Wade DT. Validity and reliability comparison of 4 mobility measures in patients presenting with neurologic impairment. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilita- tion 2001; 82: 9–13.
   Google Scholar
• Antonucci G, Aprile T, Paolucci S. Rasch analysis of the Rivermead Mobility Index: A study using mobility mea- sures of first-stroke inpatients. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2002; 83: 1442–1449.
   Google Scholar
• Vaney C, Blaurock H, Gattlen B, Meisels C. Assessing mobility in multiple sclerosis using the Rivermead Mobility Index and gait speed. Clinical Rehabilitation 1996;10: 216– 226.
   Google Scholar
• Paolucci S, Grasso MG, Antonucci G, Bragoni M, Troisi E, Morelli D, et al. Mobility status after inpatient stroke rehabilitation: 1-year follow-up and prognostic factors. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2001;82: 2– 8.
   Google Scholar
• Wright J, Cross J, Lamb S. Physiotherapy outcome measure for rehabilitation of elderly people: responsiveness to change of the Rivermead Mobility Index and Barthel Index. Physiotherapy 1998; 84: 216–221.
   Google Scholar
• Sommerfeld D, von Arbin MH. Disability test 10 days afteracute stroke to predict early discharge home in patients 65 years and older. Clinical Rehabilitation 2001; 15: 528–534.
   Google Scholar
• Lennon S, Johnson L. The modified Rivermead Mobiity
   Google Scholar
• Index: validity and reliability. Disability and Rehabilitation 2000; 22: 833–839.
   Google Scholar
• Lennon S, Hastings M. Key physiotherapy indicators for quality of stroke care. Physiotherapy 1996; 82: 655–664.
   Google Scholar
• Morris S, Morris ME, Iansek R. Reliability of measure- ments obtained with the Timed ‘‘Up & Go’’ Test in people with Parkinson Disease. Physical Therapy 2001; 81: 810–818.
   Google Scholar
• Nikolaus T, Bach M, Oster P, Schlierf G. Prospective value of self-report and performance-based tests of functional status for 18-month outcomes in elderly patients. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research 1996; 8: 271–276.
   Google Scholar