Evaluation of a 5-level Functional Independence Measure in a longitudinal study of elderly stroke survivors

References

• Hamilton B, Granger CV, Scherwin F, Zielnzny M, Tashman J. A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. In: MJ Fuhrer (ed) Rehabilitation Outcomes: Analysis and Measurements. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co, 1987; 137–147.
   Google Scholar
• Heinemann AW, Semik P, Bode RK. Reducing step disorder in multidisciplinary FIM ratings. Abstract book of the 1st World Congress of the International Society of Physical and Rehabilita- tion Medicine, 7 – 13 July, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001; 4.
   Google Scholar
• Claesson L, Svensson E. Measures of order consistency between paired ordinal data: application to the Functional Independence Measure and Sunnaas index of ADL. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2001; 33: 137– 144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundgren-Nilsson A°, Biering-So¨ rensen F, Borg J, et al. Structure of Functional Independence Measure (FIM) in stroke, traumatic brain injury and spinal cord lesions in Scandinavia. Abstract book of the 1st World Congress of the International Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 7 – 13 July, Amsterdam, The Nether- lands, 2001; 14.
   Google Scholar
• Gosman-Hedstro¨ m G, Svensson E. Parallel reliability of the functional independence measure and the Barthel ADL index. Disability and Rehabilitation 2000; 22: 702– 715.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimby G, Andre´ n E, Holmgren E, Wright B, Linacre JM, Sundh V. Structure of a combination of Functional Independence Measure and Instrumental Activity Measure items in community- living persons: a study of individuals with cerebral palsy and spina bifida. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation 1996; 77: 1109– 1114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granger CV, Cotter AC, Hamilton BB, Fiedler RC, Hens MM. Functional assessment scales: a study of persons with multiple sclerosis. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation 1990; 71: 870– 875.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Deyo RA, Charlson M, Levine MN, Mitchell A. Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1989; 42: 403– 408.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirshner B, Guyatt GH. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. Journal of Chronical Disease 1985; 38: 27– 36.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Kirshner B, Jaeschke R. Measuring health status: what are the necessary measurement properties? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1992; 45: 1341– 1345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Putten JJMF, Hobart JC, Freeman JA, Thomson AJ. Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure. Journal of Neurology, Neuro- surgery and Psychiatry 1999; 66: 480– 484.
   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. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilita- tion 1993; 74: 531– 536.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gresham G, Stason W. Rehabilitation of the stroke survivor. In: J Barnett (ed) Stroke. Pathophysiology, Diagnosis and Management. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998; 1389 – 1401.
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney F, Barthel D. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Maryland State Medical Journal 1965; 14: 61– 65.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Granger CV, Cotter AC, Hamilton BB, Fiedler RC. Functional assessment scales: a study of persons after stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation 1993; 74: 133– 138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svensson E. Comparison of the quality of assessments using continuous and discrete ordinal rating scales. Biometrical Journal 2000; 42: 417– 434.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eakin P. Problems with assessments of activities of daily living. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 1989; 52: 50– 54.
   Google Scholar
• Fagerberg B, Claesson L, Gosman-Hedstro¨ m G, Blomstrand C. Effect of acute stroke unit care integrated with care continuum versus conventional treatment: A randomized 1-year study of elderly patients: the Go¨ teborg 70+ Stroke Study. Stroke 2000; 31: 2578– 2584.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD, Granger CV, Hamilton BB. The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation 1994; 75: 127– 132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daving Y, Andre´ n E, Nordholm L, Grimby G. Reliability of an interview approach to the Functional Independence Measure. Clinical Rehabilitation 2001; 15: 301– 310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fricke J, Unsworth CA, Worell D. Reliability of the Functional Independence Measure with occupational therapists. The Austra- lian Journal of Occupational Therapy 1992; 40: 7– 15.
   Google Scholar
• Chau N, Daler S, Andre JM, Patris A. Inter-rater agreement of two functional independence scales: the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and a subjective uniform continuous scale. Disability and Rehabilitation 1994; 16: 63– 71.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hamilton BB, Laughlin JA, Fiedler RC, Granger CV. Interrater reliability of the 7-level functional independence measure (FIM). Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 1994; 26: 115– 119.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ottenbacher KJ, Mann WC, Granger CV, Tomita M, Hurren D, Charvat B. Inter-rater agreement and stability of functional assessment in the community-based elderly. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation 1994; 75: 1297– 1301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidd D, Stewart G, Baldry J, Johnsson J, Rossiter D, Petruck- evitch A, Thomson AJ. The Functional Independence Measure: a comparative validity and reliability study. Disability and Rehabi- litation 1995; 17: 10– 14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svensson E. Analysis of Systematic and Random Differences Between Paired Ordinal Categorical Data. Go¨ teborg: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Altman D. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman and Hall, 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Svensson E. Guidelines to statistical evaluations of data from rating scales and questionnaires. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2001; 33: 47– 48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wade DT. Measurement in Neurological Rehabilitation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Eakin P. Assessments of activities of daily living. A critical review. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 1989; 52: 11– 15.
   Google Scholar
• Merbitz C, Morris J, Grip JC. Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation 1989; 70: 308– 312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen PR. Empirical Methods for Artificial Intelligence. New York: Bradford Books, 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration. Organised inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke (Cochrane review). Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2002. Oxford, UK: Update Software.
   Google Scholar
• Wade DT. Functional abilities after stroke: measurement, natural history and prognosis. Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry 1987; 50: 177– 182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brousseau L, Pierre P, Boulanger YL. The Functional Indepen- dence Measure: validity of selected assessment methods applied to stroke survivors. Topics in Geratric Rehabilitation 1995; 11: 75– 86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Von Koch L, Wottrich AW, Wide´ n Holmqvist L. Rehabilitation in the home versus the hospital: the importance of context. Disability and Rehabilitation 1998; 20: 367– 372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streppel KR, Van Harten WH. The Functional Independence Measure used in a Dutch rehabilitating stroke population; a pilot study to assess progress. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 2002; 25: 87– 91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claesson L, Gosman-Hedstro¨ m G, Fagerberg B, Blomstrand C. Hospital re-admissions in relation to acute stroke unit care versus conventional care in elderly patients the first year after stroke: the Go¨ teborg 70+ Stroke study. Age Ageing 2003; 32: 109– 113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claesson L, Gosman-Hedstro¨ m G, Lundgren-Lindquist B, Fager- berg B, Blomstrand C. Characteristics of elderly people readmitted to the hospital during the first year after stroke. The Go¨ teborg 70+ stroke study. Cerebrovascular Diseases 2002; 14: 169– 176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herndon R. Handbook of Neurologic Rating Scales. New York: Demos Vermande, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace D, Duncan P, Min Lai S. Comparison of the responsive- ness of the Barthel Index and the motor component of the Functional Independent Measure in stroke. The impact of using different methods for measuring responsiveness. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2002; 55: 922– 928.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimby G, Andre´ n E, Daving Y, Wright B. Dependence and perceived difficulty in daily activities in community- living stroke survivors 2 years after stroke: a study of instrumental structures. Stroke 1998; 29: 1843– 1849.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimby G, Gudjonsson G, Rodhe M, Sunnerhagen KS, Sundh V, O¨ stensson ML. The functional independence measure in Sweden: experience for outcome measurement in rehabilitation medicine. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 1996; 28: 51– 62.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar