Short versions of the telephone motor functional independence measure for use with persons with spinal cord injury

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 80, Issue 11, 1999, Pages 1477-1484

  Dijkers, Marcel P J M ^a,b,c   Yavuzer, Güneş ^a,d  

^a REHABILITATION INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d ANKARA UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHILD; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; RELIABILITY; SPINAL CORD INJURY; TELEPHONE; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 0032697913     PISSN: 00039993     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90261-7     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS. The Functional Independence Measure: A new tool for rehabilitation. Adv Clin Rehabil 1987;1:6-18.
2. Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Keith RA, Zielezny M, Sherwin FS. Advances in functional assessment for medical rehabilitation. Top Geriatr Rehabil 1986;1:59-74.
3. Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Sherwin FF, Zielezny M, Tashman JS. A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer M, editor. Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurement. Baltimore (MD): Brookes; 1987. p. 137-47.
4. Crewe NM, Dijkers M. Functional assessment. In: Scherer M, Cushman L, editors. Psychological assessment in medical rehabilitation settings. Washington (DC): American Psychological Association; 1995. p. 101-44.
5. ® Instrument): ten years of development. Crit Rev Phys Rehabil Med 1996;8:267-81.
6. SM): opportunities for collaborative research. Assoc Academic Physiatrists Newsletter 1998;Fall:25-33.
7. Heinemann AW, Linacre JW, Wright BD, Hamilton BB, Granger C. Measurement characteristics of the Functional Independence Measure. Top Stroke Rehabil 1994;1:1-15.
8. Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD. Performance profiles of the Functional Independence Measure. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1993;72:84-9.
9. Stineman MG, Jette A, Fiedler R, Granger C. Impairment-specific dimensions within the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997;78:636-43.
10. Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fiedler RC. The reliability of the Functional Independence Measure: A quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996;77:1226-32.
11. Bode RK, Heinemann AW. An exploration of interdisciplinary ratings of functional assessment items. Phys Med Rehabil State Art Rev 1997;11:407-24.
12. ®) - Version 4.0. Buffalo (NY): Research Foundation, State University of New York at Buffalo; 1995.
13. Gonnella C. Program evaluation. In: Fletcher GF, Banja JD, Jann BB, Wolf SL, editors. Rehabilitation medicine: clinical perspectives. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger; 1992. p. 243-68.
14. Smith P, Hamilton BB, Granger CV. Functional Independence Measure decision tree: The FONE FIM. Buffalo (NY): State University of New York, Center for Functional Assessment Research; 1990.
15. Marino RJ, Cohen ME. Comparison of the self report and observational methods of the Functional Independence Measure at discharge from rehabilitation for spinal cord injury [abstract]. J Spinal Cord Med 1998;21:152.
16. Jaworski DM, Kult T, Boynton PR. The Functional Independence Measure: a pilot study comparison of observed and reported ratings. Rehabil Nurs Res 1994;3:141-7.
17. Segal ME, Schall RR. Assessing handicap of stroke survivors. A validation study of the Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1995;74:276-86.
18. Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill; 1967.
19. Kuder GF, Richardson MW. The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika 1937;2:151-60.
20. Zhu W. Should total scores from a rating scale be used directly? Res Quarterly Exer Sport 1996;67:363-72.
21. Young JS, Burns PE, Bowen AM, McCutchen R. Spinal cord injury statistics: experience of the regional model spinal cord injury systems. Phoenix (AZ): Good Samaritan Medical Center; 1982.
22. Stover SL, DeLisa J, Whiteneck GG, editors. Spinal cord injury: clinical outcomes from the Model Systems. Rockville (MD): Aspen; 1995.
23. Stover SL, DeVivo MJ, Go BK. History, implementation, and current status of the National Spinal Cord Injury Database. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999;81:1365-71.
24. Richards JS, Go BK, Rutt RD, Lazarus PB. The national spinal cord injury collaborative database. In: Stover SL, DeLisa J, Whiteneck GG, editors. Spinal cord injury: clinical outcomes from the Model Systems. Rockville (MD): Aspen; 1995. p. 10-20.
25. Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating scale analysis. Chicago: MESA Press; 1982.
26. Wright BD. Fundamental measurement for outcome evaluation. Phys Med Rehabil State Art Rev 1997;11:261-88.
27. Merbitz C, Morris J, Grip JC. Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989;70:308-12.
28. Lin LI. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1989;45:255-68.
29. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1989;1:307-10.
30. Kilgore KM, Fisher WP, Silverstein B, Harley JP, Harvey RF. Application of Rasch analysis to the Patient Evaluation and Conference System. Phys Med Rehabil Clin North Am 1993;4:493-515.
31. Formations in Health Care. Level of Rehabilitation Scale (LORS-III) Reference Manual. Chicago: Formations in Health Care; 1992.
32. Hall K. The Functional Assessment Measure. J Rehabil Outcomes Meas 1997;1:63-5.