3,080
Views
18
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Assessment Procedures

A comparison of test–retest reliability and random measurement error of the Barthel Index and modified Barthel Index in patients with chronic stroke

, , , &
Pages 2099-2103 | Received 12 Mar 2020, Accepted 20 Aug 2020, Published online: 09 Sep 2020
 

Abstract

Objective

To compare the test–retest reliability and random measurement errors of the Barthel Index (BI) and modified Barthel Index (MBI) in patients with chronic stroke.

Method

The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the minimal detectable change (MDC) were applied respectively to examine the test–retest reliability (about 2 weeks apart) and the random measurement errors. The MDC% was used to adjust the cut-off score for determining whether a real change had been achieved, if heteroscedasticity existed.

Results

A total of 60 patients participated. The BI and MBI both had high ICCs (0.94 and 0.94, respectively) with small MDCs (16.2 and 15.4, respectively) and MDC%s (21.2% and 19.0%, respectively), indicating that both measures have comparable reliability in repeated assessments. However, moderate associations (r = −0.47 for the BI and −0.59 for the MBI) were found between the means of tests and retests and the absolute values of change scores, indicating heteroscedasticity. These findings suggest that a fixed MDC value is not appropriate for determining the real change in both measures because the amount of random measurement error varies with the patients’ ADL function.

Conclusion

The MBI, which showed excellent test–retest reliability and relatively lower random measurement error than the BI, appears to be a better ADL measure. The MDC% adjusted value is recommended to determine whether the change scores are beyond random measurement error.

    IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION

  • The MBI is recommended for clinical and research applications because it has better test–retest reliability and relatively lower random measurement error than those of the original BI.

  • The MDC% adjusted value is recommended to determine whether the change scores are beyond random measurement error when the MBI or the BI is used.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Funding

This study was supported by grants from the Chung Shan Medical University and Chi Mei Medical Center (CSMU-CMMC-106-05 and CMCSMU10606).

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 374.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.