Staging functional independence validity and applications

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 84, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 38-45

  Stineman, Margaret G ^a   Ross, Richard N ^a   Fiedler, Roger ^b   Granger, Carl V ^b   Maislin, Greg ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

Activities of daily living; Classification; Disabled persons; Prospective payment system; Quality of life; Recovery of function; Rehabilitation; Reliability and validity

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BODY MOVEMENT; CLASSIFICATION; CONVALESCENCE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DEATH; DISABLED PERSON; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MORBIDITY; MORTALITY; QUALITY OF LIFE; REHABILITATION; REHABILITATION CENTER; RELIABILITY; SPHINCTER; STAGING; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 0037230888     PISSN: 00039993     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/apmr.2003.50060     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Stineman MG, Ross RN, Fiedler R, Granger CV, Maislin G, Functional Independence Staging: conceptual foundation, face validity, and empirical derivation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84:29-37.
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. Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB. Sherwin FS. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. Adv Clin Rehabil 1987;1:6-18.
4. Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. Guide for the Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation (Adult FIM), version 4.0. Buffalo (NY): Research Foundation, State Univ New York: 1995.
5. Stineman MG, Jette A, Fiedler RC, Granger CV. Impairment-specific dimensions within the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997:78:636-43.
6. Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW. Studies of illness in the aged: the Index of ADL, a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA 1963; 185:914-9.
7. Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD, Granger CV, Hamilton BB. The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994;75:127-32.
8. Stineman MG. Defining the population, treatments, and outcomes of interest. Reconciling the rules of biology with meaningfulness. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001;80:147-59.
9. World Health Organization. ICIDH-2: International classification of functioning, disability and health. Final draft. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
10. Stineman MG, Shea J, Jette AM, et al. The Functional Independence Measure: tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996;77:1101-8.
11. Carmines EG, Zeller RA. Reliability and validity assessment. Newbury Park (CA): Sage; 1979. No. 07-017.
12. Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
13. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley & Sons; 1989.
14. Harrell FE, Lee KL, Mark DB. Tutorial in biostatistics: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 1996;15:361-87.
15. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). Radiology 1982; 143:29-36.
16. Oczkowski WJ, Barreca S. The Functional Independence Measure: its use to identify rehabilitation needs in stroke survivors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993-74:1291-4.
17. Alexander MP. Stroke rehabilitation outcome: a potential use of predictive variables to establish levels of care. Stroke 1994;25: 128-34.
18. Bradley EM. Lee J. Impairment, disability, and the ICIDH model I: the relationship between impairment and disability. Int Rehabil Med 1987:8:113-7.
19. Davis RB, Iezzoni LI, Phillips RS, Reiley P, Coffman GA, Safran C. Predicting in-hospital mortality. The importance of functional status information. Med Care 1995:33:906-21.
20. Inouye SK, Peduzzi PN, Robinson JT, Hughes JS, Horwitz RI, Concato J. Importance of functional measures in predicting mortality among older hospitalized patients. JAMA 1998;279:1187- 93.
21. Tsuji I, Whalen S, Finucane TE. Predictors of nursing home placement in community-based long-term care. J Am Geriatr Soc 1995;43:761-6.
22. Weissert WG, Cready CM. Toward a model for improved targeting of aged at risk of institutionalization. Health Serv Res 1989; 24:485-510.
23. Winograd CH, Gerety MB, Chung M, Goldstein MA, Dominguez F, Vallone R. Screening for frailty: criteria and predictors of outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991:39:778-84.
24. Longo DL. Approach to the patient with cancer. In: Fauci AS, Braunwald E, Isselbacher KJ, et al, editors. Harrison's principles of internal medicine, 14th ed. Vol 1. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1998. p 493-9.
25. Ohori M, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. The New American Joint Committee on Cancer and International Union Against Cancer TNM classification of prostate cancer. Clinicopathologic correla- tions. Cancer 1994;74:104-14.
26. Gonnella JS, Hornbrook MC, Louis DZ. Staging of disease: a case-mix measurement. JAMA 1984;251:637-44.
27. Horn SD, Chambers AF, Sharkey PD, Horn RA. Psychiatric severity of illness: a case mix study. Med Care 1989;27:69-84.
28. Horn SD, Horn RA. The computerized severity index. A new tool for case-mix management. J Med Syst 1986;10:73-8.
29. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 1985;13:818-29.
30. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:622-9.
31. Low molecular weight heparinoid, ORG 10172 (danaparoid), and outcome after acute ischemic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. The Publications Committee for the Trial of ORG 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST) Investigators. JAMA 1998; 279:1265-72. Comment in: JAMA 1998;279:1304-6.
32. Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare program; prospective payment system for inpatient rehabilitation facilities; final rule. 66 Federal Register 41316 (2001).
33. Stineman MG, Tassoni CJ, Escarce JJ, et al. Development of function-related groups version 2.0: a classification system for medical rehabilitation. Health Serv Res 1997;32:529-48.
34. Carter GM, Relies DA, Wynn BO, et al. Interim report on an inpatient rehabilitation facility prospective payment system. Santa Monica (CA): RAND/UCLA/Harvard Center for Health Care Financing Policy Research; July 2000. Report No. DRU-2309-HCFA.32.
35. World Health Organization. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems. 10th rev. Vols 1-3. Geneva: WHO; 1992-1994.