Function and disability in late life: comparison of the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument to the Short-Form-36 and the London Handicap Scale

References

• He´ bert R, Brayne C, Spiegelhalter D. Incidence of functional decline and improvement in a community-dwelling, very elderly population. American Journal of Epidemiology 1997; 145: 935– 944.
   Google Scholar
• Avlund K, Thudium D, Davidsen M, Fuglsang-Sorensen B. Are self-ratings of functional ability reliable? Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 1995; 2: 10– 16.
   Google Scholar
• Crawford SL, Jette AM, Tennstedt SL. Test-retest reliability of self-reported disability measures in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1997; 45: 338– 341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindeboom R, Vermeulen M, Holman R, De Haan RJ. Activities of daily living instruments: optimizing scales for neurologic assessments. Neurology 2003; 60: 738– 742.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haley SM, Langmuir L. How do current post-acute functional assessments compare with the activity dimensions of the interna- tional classification on functioning and disability (ICIDH-2)? Journal of Rehabilitation Outcome Measurement 2000; 4: 51– 56.
   Google Scholar
• O’Mahony PG, Rodgers H, Thomson RG, Dobson R, James OF. Is the SF-36 suitable for assessing health status of older stroke patients? Age & Ageing 1998; 27: 19– 22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, O’Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, Westlake L. Validating the SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire: New Outcome Measure for Primary Care. BMJ 1992; 305(6846): 160– 164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jette AM, Haley SM, Coster WJ, Kooyoomjian JT, Levenson S, Heeren T. Late Life Function and Disability Instrument: I. Development and evaluation of the disability component. Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences 2002; 57A: M209– M216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haley SM, Jette AM, Coster WJ, Kooyoomjian JT, Levenson S, Heeren T. Late Life Function and Disability Instrument: II Development and evaluation of the function component. Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences 2002; 57A: M217– M222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagi SZ. Disability concepts revisited: implications for prevention. In Pope AM, Tarlov AR (eds) Disability in America: toward a national agenda for prevention. Washington, DC: National Acad- emy Press, 1991; 309 – 327.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International Classification of Func- tioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: WHO, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Ware JS, Kisinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Haley SM, McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning scale (PF-10): I. Unidimensionality and reproductibility of the Rasch item scale. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1994; 47: 671– 684.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHorney CA., Haley SM, Ware JE. Evaluation of the MOS SF- 36 Physical Functionning Scale (PF-10): II. Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1997; 50: 451– 461.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harwood RH, Rogers A, Dickinson E, Ebrahim S. Measuring handicap: the London handicap scale, a new outcome measure for chronic disease. Quality in Health Care 1994; 3: 11– 16.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Harwood RH, Gompertz P, Ebrahim S. Handicap one year after a stroke: validity of a new scale. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 1994; 57: 825– 829.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harwood RH, Gowpertz P, Pound P, Ebrahim S. Determinants of handicap 1 and 3 years after a stoke. Disability and Rehabilitation 1997; 19: 205– 211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lincoln NB, Flannaghan T. Cognitive behavioral psychotherapy for depression following stroke. A randomized controlled trial. Stroke 2003; 34: 111– 115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturm JW, Dewey HM, Donnan GA, Macdonell RAL, McNeil JJ, Thrift AG. Handicap after stroke: how does it relate to disability, perception of recovery, and stroke subtype? The North East Melbourne Stroke Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Stroke 2002; 33: 762– 768.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturm JW, Osborne RH, Dewey HM, Donnan GA, Macdonell RAL, Thrift AG. Brief comprehensive quality of life assessment after stroke. The assessment of quality of life instrument in the North East Melbourne Stroke Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Stroke 2002; 33: 2888– 2894.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfeiffer E. A Short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1975; 23: 433– 441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHorney C, Ware J, Lu R, Sherbourne C. The MOS 36-Items short-form health survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Medical Care 1994; 32: 40– 66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stansfeld SA, Roberts R, Foot SP. Assessing the validity of the SF- 36 general health survey. Quality of Life Research 1997; 6: 217– 224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raczek AE, Ware JE, Bjorner JB, Gandek B, Haley SM, Aaronson NK. Comparison of Rasch and summated rating scales constructed from SF-36 physical functioning items in seven countries: Result from the IQOLA project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1998; 51: 1203– 1214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkinson C, Mant J, Carter J, Wade D, Winner S. The London handicap scale: a re-evaluation of its validity using standard scoring and simple summation. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 2000; 68: 365– 367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andresen EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability of disability outcomes research. Archives of Physical and Rehabilitation 2000; 81(12 suppl. 2): S15 – S20.
   Google Scholar
• McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research 1995; 4: 293– 307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright B, Masters G. Rating scale analysis. Chicago, III: MESA Press, 1982.
   Google Scholar
• Lord F. Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Dodd B, Koch W. Effects of variations in item step values on item and test information in the partial credit model. Applied Psychological Measurement 1987; 11: 371– 384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murnki E. Information function of the generalized partial credit model. Applied Psychological Measurement 1993; 17: 351– 363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware JS, Kisinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Avlund K, Kreiner S, Schultz-Larsen K. Construct validation and the Rasch model: Functional ability of healthy elderly people. Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine 1993; 21: 233– 245.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jette AM, Assmann SF, Rooks D, Harris BA, Crawford S. Interrelationships Among Disablement Concepts. Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences 1998; 53A: M395– M404.
   Google Scholar
• Sherman S, Reuben D. Measures of functional status in commu- nity-dwelling elders. Journal of General Internal Medicine 1998; 13: 817– 823.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penta M, Thonnard JL, Tesio L. ABILHAND: A Rasch-built measure of manual ability. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1998; 79: 1038– 1042.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubuc N, Haley SM, Kooyoomjian JT, Jette AM. Assessing disability in older adults: the effects of asking questions with and without health attribution. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, (in press).
   Google Scholar
• Marx RG, Hogg-Johnson S, Hudak P, Beaton D, Shields, Bombardier C, Wright JG. A comparison of patient’s responses about their disability with and without attribution to their affected area. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2001; 54: 580– 586.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young NL, Williams JI, Yoshida KK, Bombardier C, Wright JG. The context of measuring disability: Does it matter whether capability or performance is measured? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1996; 49: 1097– 1101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gloth FM III, Walston J, Meyer J, Pearson J. Reliability and validity of the frail elderly Functional Assessment Questionnaire. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 1995; 74: 45– 53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cella D, Chang CH. A discussion of item response theory and its applications in health status assessment. Medical Care 2000; 38(suppl. II): II-66 – II-72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garratt AM. Rasch analysis of the Roland Disability Question- naire. Spine 2003; 28: 79– 84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraley RC, Waller NG, Brennan KA. An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2000; 78: 350– 365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weimar C, Kurth T, Kraywinkel K, Wagner M, Busse O, Haberl RL, Diener HC. Assessment of functioning and disability after ischemic stroke. Stroke 2002; 33: 2053– 2059.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHorney CA. Health status assessment methods for adults: past accomplishments and future challenges. Annual Review of Public Health 1999; 20: 309– 335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHorney CA. Methodological and psychometric issues in health status assessment across populations and applications. In: GL Albrecht, R Fitzpatrick (eds) Advances in Medical Sociology: Quality of Life in Health Care. Greenwich, CT: JAI, 1994; 281 – 304.
   Google Scholar
• Sherbourne CD, Meredith LS. Quality of self-report data: a comparison of older and younger chronically ill patients. Journal of Gerontology 1992; 47: S204– S211.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• May K, Nicewander WA. Measuring change conventionally and adaptively. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1998; 58(6): 882– 897.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hambleton RK. Principles and selected applications of item response theory. In: Linn RL (ed) Educational Measurement. 3rd edn. New York, NY: MacMillan, 1989; 143 – 200.
   Google Scholar
• Morales LS, Reise SP, Hays R. Evaluating the equivalence of health care ratings by whites and Hispanics. Medical Care 2000; 38: 517– 527.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar