Reliability of an interview approach to the functional independence measure

Clinical Rehabilitation

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 301-310

  Daving, Yvonne ^a   Andrén, Eva ^b   Nordholm, Lena ^b   Grimby, Gunnar ^b  

^a SAHLGRENSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; COGNITION; CONSTANTS AND COEFFICIENTS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION FUNCTION; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HOME; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; LOCOMOTION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEASUREMENT; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; NURSE; OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST; OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT; PATIENT; PATIENT TRANSPORT; RATING SCALE; RELIABILITY; SATISFACTION; SCORING SYSTEM; SOCIAL INTERACTION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STROKE; TIME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE;

EID: 0035012016     PISSN: 02692155     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1191/026921501669986659     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Hamilton BB, Granger CV. A uniform national system for medical rehabilitation. In: Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurement. Baltimore: Brookes, 1987: 137-47.
2. Guide for the Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation (adult FIM), version 4.0 (Swedish version 1994). Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo, 1993.
3. Wade DT. Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
4. Svensson E. Analysis of systematic and random differences between paired ordinal categorical data. Thesis, Department of Mathematical Statistics, Göteborg University, 1993.
5. Polit D, Hungler B. Reliability, Validity and other criteria for assessing measuring tools. In: Nursing research, principles and methods, second edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1983.
6. Nachmias C, Nachmias D. Measurement: In: Research methods in the social science, second edn. New York: St Martins Press, 1981.
7. Johnston MV, Keith RA, Hinderer SR. Measurement standards for inter-disciplinary medical rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1992; 73: S3-S23.
8. Hamilton BB, Laughlin JA. Inter-rater reliability of the 7-level Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Scand J Rehabil Med 1994; 26: 115-19.
9. Ottenbacher KJ, William C. Inter-rater agreement and stability of functional assessment in the community-based elderly. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75:1297-301.
10. Pollak N, Rheault W. 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; 77:1056-61.
11. Segal ME, Ditunno MD. Inter-institutional agreement of individual Functional Independence Measure (FIM) items measured at two sites on one sample of SCI patients. Paraplegia 1993; 31: 622-31.
12. Smith PM, Illig SB et al. Inter-modal agreement of follow-up telephone functional assessment using the Functional Independence Measure in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 431-35.
13. Brosseau L, Wolfson C. Inter-rater reliability and construct validity of the Functional Independence Measure for multiple sclerosis subjects. Clin Rehabil 1994; 8: 107-15.
14. Fricke J, Unsworth C. Reliability of the Functional Independence Measure with occupational therapists. Aust Occup Ther J 1993; 40: 7-15.
15. Jaworsky DM, Kult T. The Functional Independence Measure: a pilot study comparison of observed and reported ratings. Rehabil Nurs Res 1994; 3: 141-47.
16. Ottenbacher K.J. Hsu Y. Granger C.V. Fiedler R.C. The reliability of the Functional Independence Measure: A quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 1226-32.
17. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; February 8: 307-10.
18. Sheikh K. Disability scales; assessment of reliability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1986; 67: 245-49.
19. Bartko JJ, Carpenter WT. On the methods and theory of reliability. J Nerv Ment Dis 1976; 163: 307-17.
20. Cohen JA. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960; 20: 37-46.
21. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intra-class correlation: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86: 420-28.
22. McPherson, KM, Pentland B, Cudmore SF, Prescott RJ. An inter-rater reliability study of the Functional Assessment Measure (FIM+FAM). Disabil Rehabil 1996; 18: 341-47.
23. Chang WC, Slaughter S, Cartwright D et al. Evaluating the phone FIM: part I: construct validity. J Outcome Meas 1997; 1(3): 193-218.
24. Chang WC, Chan C. Evaluating the phone FIM: part II. Concurrent validity and influencing factors. J Outcome Meas 1997; 1(4): 259-85.
25. Grimby G, Andren 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: 1843-49.
26. Fleiss JL. The measurement of inter-rater agreement In: Statistical methods for rates and proportion, second edn. New York: Wiley, 1981.
27. Kazdin AE. Artefact, bias and complexity of assessment: the ABCs of reliability. J Appl Behav Anal 1977; 10: 141-50.
28. Brennan P, Silman A. Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures. BMJ 1992; 304: 1491-94.
29. Svensson E, Starmark J-E, Ekholm S, von Essen C, Johansson A. Analysis of inter-observer disagreement in the assessment of subarachnoid blood and acute hydrocephalus on CT scans. Neurol Res 1996; 18: 487-94.
30. Donaghy S, Wass PJ. Inter-rater reliability of the Functional Assessment Measure in a brain injury rehabilitation program. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998; 79: 1231-36.
31. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa I: the problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990; 43: 551-58.
32. Chau N, Daler S. Inter-rater agreement of two functional independence scales: The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and a subjective uniform continuous scale. Disabil Rehabil 1994; 16: 63-67.