Development of a measure of functioning for stroke recovery: The functional recovery measure

References

• Wiles R, Ashburn A, Payne S, Murphy C. Patients' expectations of recovery following stroke: A qualitative study. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 841–850
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafsteinsdottir T B, Grypdonck M. Being a stroke patient: a review of the literature. J Adv Nursing 1997; 26: 580–588
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health2nd rev ed. WHO, Geneva 2001
   Google Scholar
• Garraway W M, Akhtar A J, Prescott R J, Hockey L. Management of acute stroke in the elderly: Preliminary results of a controlled trial. BMJ 1980; 280: 1040–1043
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayo N E, Wood-Dauphinee S, Cote R, Durcan L, Carlton J. Activity, participation, and quality of life six months post-stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2001; 83: 1035–1042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan P W, Lai S M, Keighley J. Defining post-stroke recovery: implications for design and interpretation of drug trials. Neuropharmacology 2000; 39: 835–841
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ustun B, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N. Comments from WHO for the Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine Special Supplement on ICF Core Sets. J Rehabil Med 2004; 44(Suppl)7–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Merbitz C, Morris J, Grip J C. Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989; 70: 308–312
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stucki G, Daltroy L, Katz J N, Johannesson M, Liang M H. Interpretation of change scores in ordinal clinical scales and health status measures: The whole may not equal the sum of the parts. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 711–717
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright B D, Stone M H. Best test design: Rasch measurement. MESA Press, Chicago 1979
   Google Scholar
• Duncan P W, Bode R K, Lai S M, Perera S. Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: The Stroke Impact Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2003; 84: 950–963
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doble S E, Fisher A G. The dimensionality and validity of the Older American Resources and Services (OARS) Activities of Daily Living (ADL) scale. J Outcome Meas 1998; 2: 4–24
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hsueh I P, Wang W C, Sheu C F, Hsieh C L. Rasch analysis of combining two indices to assess comprehensive ADL function in stroke patients. Stroke 2004; 35: 721–726
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cote R, Battista R N, Wolfson C, Boucher J, Adam J, Hachinski V. The Canadian Neurological Scale: Validation and reliability assessment. Neurology 1989; 39: 638–643
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson E, Cox T. Exploratory factor analysis: A users' guide. Int J Select Assess 1993; 1: 84–94
   Google Scholar
• Tabachnick B G, Fidell L S. Using multivariate statistics4th ed. Allyn and Bacon, Boston 2001
   Google Scholar
• Andrich D. A general form of Rasch's extended logistic model for partial credit scoring. App Meas Educ 1988; 1: 363–378
   Google Scholar
• RUMM2020: A Windows interactive program for analysing data with Rasch Unidimensional Models for Measurement. RUMM. RUMM laboratory, Perth, Western Australia 2006
   Google Scholar
• Andrich D. Rasch models for ordered response categories. Encyclopedia Stat Behav Sci 2005; 4: 1698–1707
   Google Scholar
• Linacre J M. Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J Appl Meas 2002; 3: 85–106
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith R M. Fit analysis in latent trait measurement models. J Appl Meas 2000; 1: 199–218
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith E V, Jr. Evidence for the reliability of measures and validity of measure interpretation: A Rasch measurement perspective. J Appl Meas 2001; 2: 281–311
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mallinson T, Stelmack J, Velozo C. A comparison of the separation ratio and coefficient alpha in the creation of minimum item sets. Med Care 2004; 42(1 Suppl)I17–I24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almli R, Finger S. Towards a definition of recovery of function. Brain injury and recovery: Theoretical and controversial issues, S Finger, T E LeVere, R Almli, Stein. Plenum Press, London 1988; 1–90
   Google Scholar
• Linacre J M. Detecting multidimensionality: which residual data-type works best?. J Outcome Meas 1998; 2: 266–283
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith E V, Jr. Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. J Appl Meas 2002; 3: 205–231
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ryan J P. Introduction to latent trait analysis and item response theory. Testing in the schools. New directions for testing and measurement, W E Hathaway. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco 1983; 19
   Google Scholar
• Andrich D, Hagquist C. Detection of differential item functioning using analysis of variance. Conference on measurement in health, education, psychology and marketing: Developments with Rasch models. 2004; 36: 955–968, Abstract, Personality and Individual Difference
   Google Scholar
• Tennant A, Penta M, Tesio L, Grimby G, Thonnard J L, Slade A, Lawton G, Simone A, Carter J, Lundgren-Nilsson A, Tripolski M, Ring H, Biering-Sorensen F, Marincek C, Burger H, Phillips S. Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through differential item functioning within the framework of the Rasch model: the PRO-ESOR project. Med Care 2004; 42(1 Suppl)I37–I48
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bland J M, Altman D G. Multiple significance tests: The Bonferroni method. BMJ 1995; 310: 170
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linacre J M. Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Meas Trans 1994; 7: 328
   Google Scholar
• Hopman W M, Towheed T, Anastassiades T, Tenenhouse A, Poliquin S, Berger C, Joseph L, Brown J P, Murray T M, Adachi J D, Hanley D A, Papadimitropoulos E. Canadian normative data for the SF-36 health survey. Can Med Assoc J 2000; 163: 265–271
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streiner D L, Norman G R. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1995
   Google Scholar
• Cronbach L J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297–334
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geyh S, Cieza A, Schouten J, Dickson H, Frommelt P, Omar Z, Kostanjsek N, Ring H, Stucki G. ICF core sets for stroke. J Rehabil Med 2004; 44(Suppl)135–141
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waugh R F, Chapman E S. An analysis of dimensionality using factor analysis (true-score theory) and Rasch measurement: what is the difference? Which method is better?. J Appl Meas 2005; 6: 80–99
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Andrich D. An index of person separation in latent trait theory, the traditional KR.20 index, and the Guttman scale response pattern. Educ Res Persp 1982; 9: 95–104
   Google Scholar
• Sulter G, Steen C, De Keyser J. Use of the Barthel index and modified rankin scale in acute stroke trials. Stroke 1999; 30: 1538–1541
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright B D, Masters G N. Rating scale analysis. MESA Press, Chicago 1982
   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
• Cudkowicz M E, Schoenfeld D, Williams L. Improving the responsiveness of rating scales: The challenge of stepping twice into the same river. Neurology 2004; 62: 1666–1667
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finlayson M, Mallinson T, Barbosa V M. Activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) items were stable over time in a longitudinal study on aging. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58: 338–349
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu W, Kennedy J. Dimensionality and scaling issues measuring activities of daily living (ADL). Rasch measurement in health sciences. JAM Press, Maple Grove 2005; 362–372
   Google Scholar
• Masters G N. Item discrimination: When more is worse. J Educ Meas 1988; 25: 15–29
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George L K, Fillenbaum G G. OARS methodology: A decade of experience in geriatric assessment. J Am Geriatr Soc 1985; 33: 607–615
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fillenbaum G G, Smyer M A. The development, validity, and reliability of the OARS multidimensional functional assessment questionnaire. J Gerontology 1981; 36: 428–434
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Haley S M, McHorney C A, Ware J E, Jr. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10): I. Unidimensionality and reproducibility of the Rasch item scale. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 671–684
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Garratt A, Peto V, Stewart-Brown S. Can item response theory reduce patient burden when measuring health status in neurological disorders? Results from Rasch analysis of the SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10). J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2001; 71: 220–224
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stark S L, Edwards D F, Hollingsworth H, Gray D B. Validation of the Reintegration to Normal Living Index in a population of community-dwelling people with mobility limitations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 344–345
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakayama H, Jorgensen H S, Raaschou H O, Olsen T S. The influence of age on stroke outcome. The Copenhagen Stroke Study. Stroke 1994; 25: 808–813
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke P J, Black S E, Badley E M, Lawrence J M, Williams J I. Handicap in stroke survivors. Disabil Rehabil 1999; 21: 116–123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmed S, Mayo N E, Corbiere M, Wood-Dauphinee S, Hanley J, Cohen R. Change in quality of life of people with stroke over time: True change or response shift?. Quality of Life Res 2005; 14: 611–627
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan P W, Lai S M, Bode R K, Perera S, DeRosa J. Stroke Impact Scale-16: A brief assessment of physical function. Neurology 2003; 60: 291–296
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stratford P W, Kennedy D M. Performance measures were necessary to obtain a complete picture of osteoarthritic patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 160–167
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Z, Conrad K J, Hankin B L, Huang Z. Rasch Model Comparison of Mood and Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire and Beck Depression Inventory. Rasch Measurement in Health Sciences, N. Bezruko. JAM Press, Maple Grove 2005; 334–362
   Google Scholar
• Spitzer W O, Dobson A J, Hall J, Chesterman E, Levi J, Shepherd R, Battista R N, Catchlove B R. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: a concise QL-index for use by physicians. J Chronic Dis 1981; 34: 585–597
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wood-Dauphinee S L, Opzoomer M A, Williams J I, Marchand B, Spitzer W O. Assessment of global function: The Reintegration to Normal Living Index. Arch Phys Med Rehab 1988; 69: 583–590
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware J E, Jr, Sherbourne C D. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473–481
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahoney F I, Barthel D W. Functional evaluation: The Barthel lndex. Md St Med J 1965; 14: 61–65
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 703–709
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobkin B. Neurological rehabilitation. F.A.Davis, New York 1996; 3–45
   Google Scholar
• Stein D G. Brain injury and theories of recovery. Restorative neurology: Advances in pharmacotherapy for recovery after stroke, L B Goldstein. Goldstein Futura Publishing. 1998; 1–33
   Google Scholar
• Rauchecker J. Mechanisms of compensatory plasticity in the cerebral cortex. Brain Plasticity: Adv Neurol 1997; 73: 137–157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams J I. The Balance Scale: Reliability assessment with elderly residents and patients with an acute stroke. Scand J Rehabil Med 1995; 27: 27–36
   PubMedGoogle Scholar