Applicability of a toolkit for geriatric rehabilitation outcomes

References

• Heineman A W. Putting outcome measurement in context: A rehabilitation psychology perspective. Rehabilitation Psychology 2005; 50: 6–14
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finch E, Brooks D, Stratford P W, Mayo N. Physical rehabilitation outcome measures, a guide to enhanced clinical decision making. Decker, Hamilton, BC 2002
   Google Scholar
• Latham N K, Haley S M. Measuring functional outcomes across postacute care: Current challenges and future directions. Critical Reviews in Physical Rehabilitation Medicine 2003; 15: 83–98
   Google Scholar
• Lai S -M, Perera S, Duncan P W, Bode R. Physical and social functioning after stroke: Comparison of the Stroke Impact Scale and Short Form-36. Stroke 2003; 34: 488–493
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells J, Seabrook J, Stolee P, Borrie M, Knoefel F. State of the art in geriatric rehabilitation. Part I: Review of frailty and comprehensive geriatric assessment. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2003; 84: 890–897
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoeing H, Nusbaum N, Brummel-Smith K. Geriatric rehabilitation state of the art. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1997; 45: 1371–1381
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Desrosiers J, Ska B, Wolfson C, Nikolova R, Pervieux I, Auger C. Assembling a toolkit to measure geriatric rehabilitation outcomes. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2005; 84: 460–472
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan P, Lai S -M, van Culin V, Huang L, Clausen D, Wallace D. Development of a comprehensive assessment toolbox for stroke. Clinics in Geriatric Medicine 1999; 15: 885–915
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arns P, Rogers S, Cook J, Mowbray C. The IAPRSR toolkit: Development, utility, and relation to other performance measurement systems. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 2001; 25: 43–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapko M, Rothman M L, Ehreth J, Hedrick S C, Sullivan J, Erdly W, Cooper S. Data collection in the adult day health care evaluation study. Medical Care 1993; 31: SS15–SS25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Ska B, Desrosiers J, Alix C, Wolfson C. Development of a conceptual framework for the assessment of geriatric rehabilitation outcomes. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 2004; 38: 221–237
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VanSwearingen J M, Brach J S. Making geriatric assessment work – selecting useful measures. Physical Therapy 2001; 81: 1233–1251
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law M. Measurement in occupational therapy: Scientific criteria for evaluation. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy 1987; 54: 133–138
   Google Scholar
• Gonzalez-Gordon R G, Salvador-Carulla L, Romero C, Gonzalez-Saiz F, Romero D. Feasibility, reliability and validity of the Spanish version of psychiatric assessment schedule for adults with developmental disability: A structured psychiatric interview for intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 2002; 46: 209–217
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salter K, Jutai J W, Teasell R, Foley N C, Bitensky J. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF body functions. Disability and Rehabilitation 2005; 27: 191–207
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wade D T. Assessment, measurement and data collection tools. Clinical Rehabilitation 2004; 18: 233–237
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andresen E M. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2000; 81: S15–S20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auger C, Demers L, Swaine B. Making sense of pragmatic criteria for the selection of geriatric rehabilitation measurement tools. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, In press. Accessible on line at www.sciencedirect.com
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bureau-Chalot F, Novella J L, Jolly D, Ankri J, Guillemin F, Blanchard F. Feasibility, acceptability and internal consistency reliability of the Nottingham Health Profile in dementia patients. Gerontology 2002; 48: 220–225
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakayama T, Toyoda H, Ohno K, Yoshiike N, Futagami T. Validity, reliability and acceptability of the Japanese version of the General Well-being Schedule (GWSB). Quality of Life Research 2000; 9: 529–539
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andresen E M, Rothenberg B M, Kaplan R M. Performance of a self-administered mailed version of the quality of well-being (QWB-SA) questionnaire among older adults. Medical Care 1998; 36: 1349–1360
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan T S, Lam L C, Chiu H F, Prince M. Validity and applicability of the Chinese version of community screening instrument for dementia. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders 2003; 15: 10–18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Monette M, Lapierre Y, Arnold D, Wolfson C. Reliability validity and applicability of the Quebec user assistive technology QUEST 2.0 for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disability and Rehabilitation 2002; 24: 21–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norén A M, Bogren U, Bolin J, Stenstrom C. Balance assessment in patients with peripheral arthritis: Applicability and reliability of some clinical assessments. Physiotherapy Research International 2001; 6: 193–204
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goodgold S, Kiami S, Ule D, Schoenberg A, Forman G. Applicability of the Functional Reach and Timed up and go tests for elderly individuals with Alzheimer's disease: Pilot investigation. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics 2001; 19: 21–36
   Google Scholar
• Kane R L, Kane R A. Assessing older persons, measures, meaning, and practical applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000; 542
   Google Scholar
• Streiner D L, Norman G R. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, New York 2003
   Google Scholar
• Pinsonnault E, Desrosiers J, Dubuc N, Kalfat H, Colvez A, Delli-Colli N. Functional autonomy measurement system: Development of a social subscale. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 2003; 37: 223–233
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hébert R, Carrier R, Bilodeau A. The functional autonomy measurement system SMAF: Description and validation of an instrument for the measurement of handicaps. Age and Aging 1988; 17: 293–302
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desrosiers J, Bravo G, Hébert R, Dubuc N. Reliability of the functional autonomy measurement system SMAF revised for epidemiologic study. Age and Aging 1995; 24: 402–406
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desrosiers J, Rochette A, Noreau L, Bravo G, Hébert R, Boutin C. Comparison of two functional independence scales with a participation measure in post-stroke rehabilitation. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 2003; 37: 157–172
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carbonneau H, Hélie C, Ouellet G. Évaluation d'un programme d'éducation au loisir. Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières 1994
   Google Scholar
• Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The Timed up and go a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. Journal of American Geriatric Society 1991; 39: 142–148
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freter S H, Fruchter N. Relationship between Timed ‘up and go’ and gait time in an elderly orthopaedic rehabilitation population. Clinical Rehabilitation 2000; 14: 96–101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitney J C, Lord S R, Close J C. Streamlining assessment and intervention in a falls clinic using the Timed up and go test and physiological profile assessments. Age and Ageing 2005; 34: 567–571
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shumway-Cook A, Brauer S, Woollacott M. Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the Timed up & go test. Physical Therapy 2000; 80: 896–903
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris S, Morris M, Iansek R. Reliability of measurements obtained with the Timed ‘up & go’ test in people with Parkinson disease. Physical Therapy 2001; 81: 810–818
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoppen T, Boonstra A, Groothoff J W, de Vries J, Goeken L N, Eisma W H. The Timed ‘up and go’ test: Reliability and validity in persons with unilateral lower limb amputation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1999; 80: 825–828
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rockwood K, Awalt E, Carver D, MacKnight C. Feasibility and measurement properties of the Functional Reach and the Timed up and go tests in the Canadian study of health and aging. The Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 2000; 55: M70–M73
   Google Scholar
• Jensen M, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: A comparison of six methods. Pain 1986; 27: 117–126
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stratford P W, Spadoni G, Kennedy D, Westaway M D, Alcock G K. Seven points to consider when investigating a measure's ability to detect change. Physiotherapy Canada 2002; Winter: 16–24
   Google Scholar
• Mathiowetz V, Volland G, Kashman N, Weber K. Adult norms for the Box and Block test of manual dexterity. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 1985; 39: 386–391
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desrosiers J, Bravo G, Hebert R, Dutil E, Mercier L. Validation of the Box and Block test as a measure of dexterity of elderly people: Reliability, validity, and norms studies. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1994; 75: 751–755
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desrosiers J, Hebert R, Bravo G, Dutil E. Upper extremity performance test for the elderly (TEMPA): Normative data and correlates with sensorimotor parameters. Test d'évaluation des membres supérieurs de personnes âgées. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 1995; 76: 1125–1129
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dupuy H. Self-representation of general psychological well-being of American adults. American Public Health Association Meeting, Los Angeles, CA 1978
   Google Scholar
• Fazio A F. A concurrent validational study of the NCHS General Well-being Schedule. Vital & Health Statistics – Series 2: Data Evaluation & Methods Research 1977; 1–53
   Google Scholar
• Bravo G, Gaulin P, Dubois M -F. Validation d'une échelle de bien-être général auprès d'une population âgée de 50 à 75 ans. Canadian Journal on Aging 1996; 15: 112–128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring health a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford University Press, New York 1996
   Google Scholar
• Teng E L, Chui H C. The Modified Mini-mental State (3MS) examination. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 1987; 48: 314–318
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folstein M, Folstein S, McHugh P. Mini-mental State a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatry Research 1975; 17: 37–49
   Google Scholar
• Bravo G, Hebert R. Age- and education-specific reference values for the Mini-mental and Modified Mini-mental State Examinations derived from a non-demented elderly population. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 1997; 12: 1008–1018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montgomery R, Gonyea J, Hooyman R. Caregiving and the experience of subjective and objective burden. Family relations 1985; 34
   Google Scholar
• Montgomery R JV, Borgatta E F, Borgatta M L. Societal and family change in the burden of care. Who should care for the elderly? An East-west value divide, W TLH Kendig. The National University of Singapore Press, Singapore 2000; 27–52
   Google Scholar
• Sarason I G, Sarason B R, Shearin E N, Pierce G R. A brief measure of social support: Practical and theoretical implications. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 1987; 4: 497–510
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarason I, Levine H, Basham R, Sarason B. Assessing social support: The social support questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1983; 44: 127–139
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charlson M, Pompei P, Ales M, MacKenzie C. A new method of classifiying comorbidity in studies: Development and validation. Journal of Chronic Disease 1987; 40: 373–393
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dodds T A, Martin D P, Stolov W C, Deyo R A. A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1993; 74: 531–536
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deyo R A, Cherkin D C, Ciol M A. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1992; 45: 613–619
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hébert R, Guilbeault J. Guide d'utilisation du Système de Mesure de l'Autonomie Fonctionnelle. Sherbrooke 2002
   Google Scholar
• Husted J, Cook R, Farewell V, Gladman D. Methods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2000; 53: 459–468
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SPSS for windows. SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL 2003
   Google Scholar
• Landis J R, Koch G G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159–174
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinsonnault E, Desrosiers J, Dubuc N, Kalfat H, Colvez A, Delli-Colli N. Développement d'une dimension sociale au Système de Mesure de l'Autonomie Fonctionnelle. Le Gérontophile 2002; 24: 11–17
   Google Scholar
• Siggeirsdottir K, Jonsson B Y, Jonsson H J, Iwarsson S. The timed ‘up & go’ is dependent on chair type. Clinical Rehabilitation 2002; 16: 609–616
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eekhof J AH, De Bock G H, Schaapveld K, Springer M P. Functional mobility assessment at home. Canadian Family Physician 2001; 47: 1205–1207
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers A R, Andresen E M. Enabling our instruments: Accommodation, universal design, and access to participation in research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2000; 81
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar