Evaluating rehabilitation outcomes from the client's perspective by identifying the gap between current and preferred movement ability

References

• Cott CA. Client-centred rehabilitation: client perspectives. Disabil Rehabil 2004;26:1411–1422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law M, Baptiste S, Mills J. Client-centred practice: what does it mean and does it make a difference? Can J Occup Ther 1995;62:250–257.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. British Medical Journal 1996;312:71–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cott CA, Finch E, Gasner D, Yoshida K, Thomas SG, Verrier MCM. The movement continuum theory of physical therapy. Physiother Can 1995;47:87–95.
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney FJ, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md Med J 1965;14:61–65.
   Google Scholar
• Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Sherwin FS, Zielezny M, Tashman JS. A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. In: Fisher ZM, editor. Rehabilitation outcomes analysis and measurement. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company Inc; 1987. pp 137–147.
   Google Scholar
• Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI. Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiother Can 1989;41:304.
   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. Scand J Rehab Med 1975;7:13–31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wolf SL, Catlin PA, Ellis M, Archer AL, Morgan B, Piacentino A. Assessing Wolf Motor Function Test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke. Stroke 2001;32:1635–1639.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granger C, Cotter A, Hamilton B, Fielder R, Hens M. Functional assessment scales: a study of persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1990;71:870–875.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiresuk T, Sherman R. Goal attainment scaling: a general method of evaluating comprehensive mental programs. Commun Ment Health J 1968;4:443–453.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stratford P, Gill C, Westaway M, Binkley J. Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure. Physiother Can 1995;47:258–263.
   Google Scholar
• Clark MS, Caudrey DJ. Evaluation of rehabilitation services: the use of goal attainment scaling. Int Rehabil Med 1983;5:41–45.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Malec JF, Smigielski JS, Depompolo RW. Goal attainment and outcome measurement in postacute brain injury rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1991;72:138–143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stolee P, Stadnyk K, Myers AM, Rockwood KJ. An individualized approach to outcome measurement in geriatric rehabilitation. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 1999;12:M641–M647.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurn J, Kneebone I, Cropley M. Goal setting as an outcome measure: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil 2006;20:756–772.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joyce BM, Rockwood KJ, Mate-Kole CC. Use of goal attainment scaling in brain injury in a rehabilitation hospital. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1994;73:10–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ottenbacher KJ, Cusick A. Goal attainment scaling as a method of clinical service evaluation. Am J Occup Ther 1990;44:519–525.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forbes DA. Goal attainment scaling. A responsive measure of client outcomes. J Gerontol Nurs 1998;24:34–40.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mitchell T, Cusick A. Evaluation of a client-centred paediatric rehabilitation programme using goal attainment scaling. Aust Occup Ther J 1998;45:7–17.
   Google Scholar
• Turnball J. Evaluating health care using goal attainment scaling. Nurs Stand 1998;12:35–38.
   Google Scholar
• Cleland JA, Fritz JM, Whitman JM, Palmer JA. The reliability and construct validity of the neck disability index and patient specific functional scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Spine 2006;31:598–602.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterling M, Brentnall D. Patient specific functional scale. Aust J Physiother 2007;53:65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Depledge J, McNair PJ, Keal-Smith C, Williams M. Management of symphysis pubis dysfunction during pregnancy using exercise and pelvic support belts. Phys Ther 2005;85:1290–1300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berghuis-Kelley D, Scherer S. Outcome measures in cardiopulmonary physical therapy: use of the patient specific functional scale. Cardiopulm Phys Ther J 2007;18:21–23.
   Google Scholar
• Chatman AB, Hyams SP, Neel JM, Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Schomberg A, Stabler M. The patient-specific functional scale: measurement properties in patients with knee dysfunction. Phys Ther 1997;77:820–829.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating scale analysis. Chicago, IL: MESA Press; 1982.
   Google Scholar
• Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Allen DD. Validity and reliability of the Movement Ability Measure: a self-report instrument proposed for assessing movement across diagnoses and ability levels. Phys Ther 2007;87:899–916.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson M. Constructing measures: an item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Allen DD. Proposing 6 dimensions within the construct of movement in the Movement Continuum Theory. Phys Ther 2007;87:888–898.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen DD. Responsiveness of the Movement Ability Measure: a self-report instrument proposed for assessing the effectiveness of physical therapy intervention. Phys Ther 2007;87:917–924.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen DD. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Movement Ability Measure, a new instrument proposed for assessing physical therapist competence [Dissertation]. Berkeley, CA: Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, Boers M, Simon L, Strand V, Brooks P, Tugwell P. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 2001;28(2):406–412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Straube D, Campbell SK. Rater discrimination using the visual analog scale of the physical therapist clinical performance instrument. J Phys Ther Educ 2003;17:33–38.
   Google Scholar
• ACER ConQuest: Generalised Item Response Modelling Software [computer program]. Version 2.0. Hawthorn, Australia: ACER (Australian Council for Educational Research) Press; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• 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
• Cott CA, Teare G, McGilton KS, Lineker S. Reliability and construct validity of the client-centred rehabilitation questionnaire. Disabil Rehabil 2006;28:1387–1397.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar