Responsiveness of functional health status measures frequently used in stroke research

References

• Terwee C B, Dekker F W, Wiersinga W M, Prummel M F, Bossuyt P M. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: Guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 349–362
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van de Putten J J, Hobart J C, Freeman J A, Thompson A J. Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: Comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel index and the Functional Independence Measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiat 1999; 66: 480–484
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobart J C, Lamping D L, Freeman J A, Langdon D W, McLellan D L, Greenwood R J, Thompson A J. Evidence-based measurement: Which disability scale for neurologic rehabilitation?. Neurology 2001; 57: 639–644
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsueh I P, Lin J H, Jeng J S, Hsieh C L. Comparison of the psychometric characteristics of the Functional Independence Measure, 5-item Barthel index, and 10-item Barthel index in patients with stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiat 2002; 73: 188–190
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace D, Duncan P W, Lai S M. 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 responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 922–928
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Haan R, Aaronson N, Limburg M, Hewer R L, Crevel Hv. Measuring quality of life in stroke. Stroke 1993; 24: 320–327
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chong D K. Measurement of instrumental activities of daily living in stroke. Stroke 1995; 26: 1119–1122
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holbrook M, Skilbeck C E. An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age Ageing 1983; 12: 166–170
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wade D T, Legh-Smith J, Langton Hewer R. Social activities after stroke: Measurement and natural history using the Frenchay Activities Index. Int Rehab Med 1985; 7: 176–181
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schuling J, Haan R D, Limburg M, Groenier K H. The Frenchay Activities Index. Assessment of functional status in stroke patients. Stroke 1993; 24: 1173–1177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van de Port I GL, Ketelaar M, Schepers V PM, van de Bos G AM, Lindeman E. Monitoring the functional health status of stroke patients: The value of the Stroke-Adapted Sickness Impact Profile-30. Disab Rehab 2004; 26: 635–640
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorgensen H S, Nakayama H, Raaschou H O, Larsen K, Hubbe P, Olsen T S. The effect of a stroke unit: Reductions in mortality, discharge rate to nursing home, length of hospital stay, and cost. A community-based study. Stroke 1995; 26: 1178–1182
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalra L. The influence of stroke unit rehabilitation on functional recovery from stroke. Stroke 1994; 25: 821–825
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dam M, Tonin P, Casson S, Ermani M, Pizzolato G, Iaia V, Battistin L. The effects of long-term rehabilitation therapy on poststroke hemiplegic patients. Stroke 1993; 24: 1186–1191
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorgensen H S, Nakayama H, Raaschou H O, Vive-Larsen J, Stoier M, Olsen T S. Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke. Part II: Time course of recovery. The Copenhagen stroke study. Arch Phys Med Rehab 1995; 76: 406–412
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collin C, Wade D T, Davies S, Horne V. The Barthel ADL Index: A reliability study. Int Disab Stud 1988; 10: 61–63
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hamilton B B, Granger C V, Sherwin F S, Zielezny M, Tashman J S. A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurement, M J Fuhrer. Paul H. Brookes Publ, Baltimore, MD 1987; 137–147
   Google Scholar
• Van Straten A, de Haan R J, Limburg M, Schuling J, Bossuyt P, van de Bos G A. A stroke-adapted 30-item version of the Sickness Impact Profile to assess quality of life (SA-SIP30). Stroke 1997; 28: 2155–2161
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazis L E, Anderson J J, Meenan R F. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989; 27: S178–S189
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic Press, New York 1977
   Google Scholar
• Wyller T B, Sveen U, Bautz-Holter E. The Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients: agreement between scores by patients and by relatives. Disab Rehab 1996; 18: 454–459
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segal M E, Schall R R. Determining functional/health status and its relation to disability in stroke survivors. Stroke 1994; 25: 2391–2397
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tooth L R, McKenna K T, Smith M, O'Rourke P. Further evidence for the agreement between patients with stroke and their proxies on the Frenchay Activities Index. Clin Rehab 2003; 17: 656–665
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sneeuw K C, Aaronson N K, de Haan R J, Limburg M. Assessing quality of life after stroke. The value and limitations of proxy ratings. Stroke 1997; 28: 1541–1549
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar