Measurement properties of a modified Reintegration to Normal Living Index in a community-dwelling adult rehabilitation population

References

• Wood-Dauphinee S, Opzoomer A, Williams I, Marchand B, Spitzer W. Assessment of global function: The Reintegration to Normal Living Index. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1988;69: 583–590.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams I. Reintegration to normal living as a proxy to quality of life. J Chron Dis 1987;40:491–499.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Johansson U, Hogberg H, Bernspang B. Participation in everyday occupations in a late phase of recovery after brain injury. Scand J Occup Ther 2007;14:116–125.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Law M, Baum C, Dunn W. Measuring occupational performance: supporting best practice in occupational therapy. New Jersey: Slack Incorporated; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Tooth L, McKenna K, Smith M, O'Rourke P. Reliability of scores between stroke patients and significant others on the Reintegration to Normal Living (RNL) Index. Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:433–440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lannin N, Clemson L, McCluskey A, Lin C, Cameron I, Barras S. Feasibility and results of a randomised pilot-study of pre-discharge occupational therapy home visits. BMC Health Serv Res 2007;7:42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daneski K, Coshall C, Tilling K, Wolfe C. Reliability and validity of a postal version of the Reintegration to Normal Living Index, modified for use with stroke patients. Clin Rehabil 2003;17:835–839.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finch E, Brooks D, Stratford W, Mayo N. Reintegration to normal living (RNL) index. Physical rehabilitation outcome measures. 2nd ed. Ontario: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Stark S, Edwards D, Hollingsworth H, Gray D. Validation of the Reintegration to Normal Living Index in a population of community-dwelling people with mobility limitations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:344–345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anastasi A, Urbina S. Technical and methodological principles. Psychological testing. 7 ed. NJ: Prentice-Hall International; 1997. pp 22–80.
   Google Scholar
• Steiner A, Raunbe K, Stuck A, Aronow H, Draper D, Rubenstein L, Beck JC. Measuring psychological aspects of well-being in older community residents: performance of four short scales. Gerontologist 1996;36:54–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunually J, Bernstein I. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Churchill GAJ, Peter JP. Research design effects on the reliability of rating scales: a meta-analysis. J Mark Res 1984;21:360–375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korner-Bitensky N, Wood-Dauphinee S, Siemiatycki J, Shapiro S, Becker R. Health-related information postdischarge: telephone versus face-to-face interviewing. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994;75:1287–1296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fink A. The survey kit. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Pfeiffer E. A Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. JAm Geriatr Soc 1975;23:433–441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McColl M, Davies D, Carlson P, Johnston J, Minnes P. The community integration measure: Development and preliminary validation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82: 429–434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker P, Bodner E, Allman R. Measuring life-space mobility in community-dwelling adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003;51: 1610–1614.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 1948;32:221–233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP, Jr., Rogers RL, Chissom BS. Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report 8–75. Millington, TN: Naval Technical Training, U. S. Naval Air Station, Memphis, TN; 1975.
   Google Scholar
• Eagleson RD. Writing in plain English. Canberra: Commonwealth Government Printer.
   Google Scholar
• NHMRC. National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Internet2007. Electronic Citation. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/_files/e72.pdf. Last accessed February 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre J. A user's guide to Winsteps. Rasch model computer programs. Chicago. Internet2004. Electronic Citation. www.winsteps.com. Last accessed December 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Tesio L. Measuring behaviors and perceptions: Rasch analysis as a tool for rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med 2003;35:105–115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond T, Fox C. Applying the Rasch Model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• MacKnight C, Rockwood K. Rasch analysis of the hierarchial assessment of balance and mobility (HABAM). J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:1242–1247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. Investigating rating scale category utility. JOutcome Measure 1999;3:103–122.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• SPSS. SPSS base 15.0 applications guide. Chicago: 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Shrout P, Fleiss J. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86:420–428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linacre J. WINSTEPS Rasch measurement computer program. Chicago: Winsteps.com; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Wright B, Linacre J. Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measure Trans 1994;8:370.
   Google Scholar
• Simmonds F, Stevermuer T. The AROC annual report: the state of rehabilitation in Australia 2006. Aust Health Rev 2008;32:85–110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Introduction to Rasch measurement: theory, models and applications. In: Smith EVJ, Smith RM, editors. Maple Grove, Minnesota: JAM Press; 2004. pp 258–278.
   Google Scholar