Cross-cultural validation of the Persian version of the Functional Independence Measure for patients with stroke

References

• Young JA, Tolentino M. Stroke evaluation and treatment. Top Stroke Rehabil 2009;16:389–410
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe C. The impact of Stroke. Br Med Bull 2000;56:275–86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, et al. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF body functions. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27:191–207
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996
   Google Scholar
• Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. Adv Clin Rehabil 1987;1:6–18
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Freeman JA, et al. Evidence-based measurement: which disability scale for neurologic rehabilitation? Neurology 2001;57:639–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng YS, Jung H, Tay SS, et al. Results from a prospective acute inpatient rehabilitation database: clinical characteristics and functional outcomes using the Functional Independence Measure. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2007;36:3–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ditunno JF Jr, Barbeau H, Dobkin BH, et al.; Spinal Cord Injury Locomotor Trial Group. Validity of the walking scale for spinal cord injury and other domains of function in a multicenter clinical trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007;21:539–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masedo AI, Hanley M, Jensen MP, et al. Reliability and validity of a self-report FIM (FIM-SR) in persons with amputation or spinal cord injury and chronic pain. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:167–76; quiz 177–179, 198
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karamehmetoglu SS, Karacan I, Elbsai N, et al. The functional independence measure in spinal cord injured patients: comparison of questioning with observational rating. Spinal Cord 1997;35:22–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohler F, Dickson H, Redmond H, et al. Agreement of functional independence measure item scores in patients transferred from one rehabilitation setting to another. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2009;45:479–85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denti L, Agosti M, Franceschini M. Outcome predictors of rehabilitation for first stroke in the elderly. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2008;44:3–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tur BS, Gursel YK, Yavuzer G, et al. Rehabilitation outcome of Turkish stroke patients: in a team approach setting. Int J Rehabil Res 2003;26:271–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dromerick AW, Edwards DF, Diringer MN. Sensitivity to changes in disability after stroke: a comparison of four scales useful in clinical trials. J Rehabil Res Dev 2003;40:1–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsueh IP, Lin JH, Jeng JS, Hsieh CL. 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 Psychiatry 2002;73:188–90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inouye M, Hashimoto H, Mio T, Sumino K. Influence of admission functional status on functional change after stroke rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001;80:121–5; quiz 126, 146
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murakami M, Inouye M. Stroke rehabilitation outcome study: a comparison of Japan with the United States. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2002;81:279–82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kucukdeveci AA, Yavuzer G, Elhan AH, et al. Adaptation of the functional independence measure for use in Turkey. Clin Rehabil 2001;15:311–19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saberi A, Saber MJ, Roudbary SA, Shirzani A. Serum homocysteine and the short-term outcome of ischemic stroke. J Neurol Res 2014;4:15–21
   Google Scholar
• Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000;25:3186–91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristjansson EA, Desrochers A, Zumbo B. Translating and adapting measurement instruments for cross-linguistic and cross-cultural research: a guide for practitioners. Can J Nurs Res 2003;35:127–42
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nakhostin Ansari N, Naghdi S, Forogh B, et al. Development of the Persian version of the Modified Ashworth Scale: translation, adaptation, and examination of interrater and intrarater reliability in patients with poststroke elbow flexor spasticity. Disabil Rehabil 2012;34:1843–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oveisgharan S, Shirani S, Ghorbani A, et al. Barthel index in a Middle-East country: translation, validity and reliability. Cerebrovasc Dis 2006;22:350–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2003
   Google Scholar
• Bland JA, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall; 2009
   Google Scholar
• Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Keith RA, et al. Advances in functional assessment for medical rehabilitation. Top Geriatr Rehabil 1986;1:59–74
   Google Scholar
• Grey N, Kennedy P. The functional independence measure: a comparative study of clinician and self ratings. Paraplegia 1993;31:457–61
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hobart JC, Thompson AJ. The five item Barthel index. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2001;71:225–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Putten JJ, 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. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999;66:480–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:34–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharrack B, Hughes RA, Soudain S, Dunn G. The psychometric properties of clinical rating scales used in multiple sclerosis. Brain 1999;122:141–59
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodds TA, Martin DP, Stolov WC, Deyo RA. A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:531–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheuringer M, Grill E, Boldt C, Stucki G. Latent class factor analysis of the functional independence measure confirmed four distinct dimensions in patients undergoing neurological rehabilitation. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2011;47:25–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavanagh SJ, Hogan K, Gordon V, Fairfax J. Stroke-specific FIM models in an urban population. J Neurosci Nurs 2000;32:17–21
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ravaud JF, Delcey M, Yelnik A. Construct validity of the functional independence measure (FIM): questioning the unidimensionality of the scale and the “value” of FIM scores. Scand J Rehabil Med 1999;31:31–41
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stineman MG, Jette A, Fiedler R, Granger C. Impairment-specific dimensions within the functional independence measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997;78:636–43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daving Y, Andren E, Nordholm L, Grimby G. Reliability of an interview approach to the functional independence measure. Clin Rehabil 2001;15:301–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segal ME, Schall RR. Determining functional/health status and its relation to disability in stroke survivors. Stroke 1994;25:2391–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brosseau L, Wolfson C. The inter-rater reliability and construct validity of the functional independence measure for multiple sclerosis subjects. Clin Rehabil 1994;8:107–15
   Google Scholar
• Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fiedler RC. The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996;77:1226–32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:1033–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brock KA, Goldie PA, Greenwood KM. Evaluating the effectiveness of stroke rehabilitation: choosing a discriminative measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:92–99
   PubMed Web of Science ®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. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997;78:630–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner MT, Zucchigna LJ. Longitudinal comparison of the Barthel and FIM during the first six months of recovery from stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1988;69:755
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gosman-Hedstrom G, Svensson E. Parallel reliability of the functional independence measure and the Barthel ADL index. Disabil Rehabil 2000;22:702–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar