Equating activities of daily living outcome measures: the Functional Independence Measure and the Korean version of Modified Barthel Index

References

• Tate RL, Godbee K, Sigmundsdottir L. A systematic review of assessment tools for adults used in traumatic brain injury research and their relationship to the ICF. NeuroRehabilitation. 2013;32:729–750.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sangha H, Lipson D, Foley N, et al. A comparison of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure as outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: patterns of disability scale usage in clinical trials. Int J Rehabil Res. 2005;28:135–139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haigh R, Tennant A, Biering-Sorensen F, et al. The use of outcome measures in physical medicine and rehabilitation within Europe. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33:273–278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:703–709.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamilton BB, Laughlin JA, Fiedler RC, et al. Interrater reliability of the 7-level functional independence measure (FIM). Scand J Rehabil Med. 1994;26:115–119.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carter GM, Relies DA, Ridgeway GK, et al. measuring function for medicare inpatient rehabilitation payment. Health Care Finan Rev. 2003;24:25–44.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hinkle JL. The use of the FIM™ instrument in the poststroke population. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2000;7:47–66.
   Google Scholar
• Joseph C, Rhoda A. Outcome measures used to assess disability post stroke within the framework of the ICF: a literature review. J Commun Health Sci. 2011;6:39–52.
   Google Scholar
• Yoo EY, Jung MY, Park SY, et al. Current trends of occupational therapy assessment tool by Korean occupational therapists. J Korean Soc Occup Ther. 2006;14:27–37.
   Google Scholar
• Velozo CA, Byers KL, Wang YC, et al. Translating measures across the continuum of care: using Rasch analysis to create a crosswalk between the Functional Independence Measure and the Minimum Data Set. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2007;44:467–478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, et al. The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77:1226–1232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung HY, Park BK, Shin HS, et al. Development of the Korean version of Modified Barthel Index (K-MBI): multi-center study for subjects with stroke. J Korean Acad Rehabil Med. 2007;31:283–297.
   Google Scholar
• Kwon S, Hartzema AG, Duncan PW, et al. Disability measures in stroke: relationship among the Barthel Index, the Functional Independence Measure, and the Modified Rankin Scale. Stroke. 2004;35:918–923.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Namkung Y, Lee HS, Chang KY. The correlation of Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and 5 scale Modified Barthel Index (MBI) in patient with CVA. J Korean Soc Occup Ther. 1996;4:45–50.
   Google Scholar
• Stineman MG, Shea JA, Jette A, et al. The functional independence measure: tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77:1101–1108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollak N, Rheault W, Stoecker JL. Reliability and validity of the FIM for persons aged 80 years and above from a multilevel continuing care retirement community. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77:1056–1061.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD, et al. The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75:127–132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fricke J, Unsworth CA. Inter‐rater reliability of the original and modified Barthel Index, and a comparison with the Functional Independence Measure. Aust Occup Ther J. 1997;44:22–29.
   Google Scholar
• Kucukdeveci A, Yavuzer G, Tennant A, et al. Adaptation of the modified Barthel Index for use in physical medicine and rehabilitation in Turkey. Scand J Rehabil Med. 2000;32:87–92.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Hartingsveld F, Lucas C, Kwakkel G, et al. Improved interpretation of stroke trial results using empirical Barthel item weights. Stroke. 2006;37:162–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe EW. Equating and item banking with the Rasch model. J Appl Meas. 1999;1:409–434.
   Google Scholar
• Masters GN. Common-person equating with the Rasch model. Appl Psychol Measure. 1985;9:73–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. A User’s Guide to WINSTEPS® 3.91.2. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• IBM Corp. Released 2013. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Matsunaga M. How to factor-analyze your data right: do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s. Int J Psychol Res. 2010;3:97–110.
   Google Scholar
• Allen MJ, Yen WM. Introduction to measurement theory. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Wright BD, Linacre JM, Gustafson J, et al. Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measure Transact. 1994;8:370.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. Data variance explained by Rasch measures. Rasch Measure Transact. 2006;20:1045.
   Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ 1997;314:572
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4:293–307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Measure Transact. 1994;7:328.
   Google Scholar
• Leung SO, Chan CC, Shah S. Development of a Chinese version of the Modified Barthel Index – validity and reliability. Clin Rehabil. 2007;21:912–922.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stineman MG, Granger CV. A modular case-mix classification system for medical rehabilitation illustrated. Health Care Financ Rev. 1997;19:87–103.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Velozo CA, Magalhaes LC, Pan A-W, et al. Functional scale discrimination at admission and discharge: Rasch analysis of the level of rehabilitation scale-III. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76:705–712.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Byers KL, Velozo CA. Validation of FIM-MDS crosswalk conversion algorithm. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45:1065–1076.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu M. Measurement, sampling, and equating errors in large‐scale assessments. Educ Measure Iss Pract. 2010;29:15–27.
   Google Scholar