Selecting outcomes measures in children's rehabilitation: A comparison of methods

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 84, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 496-499

  Law, Mary ^a   Hurley, Patricia ^a   Hurley, Dianne ^a   King, Gillian ^b   Hanna, Steven ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b THAMES VALLEY CHILDREN S CENTRE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Clinical trials; Computer assisted instruction; Disabled children; Rehabilitation; Treatment outcome

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CANADA; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DECISION MAKING; HANDICAPPED CHILD; OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PHYSIOTHERAPIST; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REHABILITATION CENTER;

EID: 0037387283     PISSN: 00039993     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/apmr.2003.50035     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Law M, King G, Russell D, MacKinnon E, Hurley P, Murphy C. Measuring outcomes in children's rehabilitation: a decision protocol. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999;80:629-36.
2. Haley SM, Coster WJ, Ludlow LH. Pediatric functional outcome measures. Phys Med Rehabil Clin North Am 1991;4:689-723.
3. Fougeyrollas P, Bergeron H, Cloutier R, St Michel G. The handicap creation process: analysis of the consultation and new full proposals. Int ICIDH Network 1991;4:1-38.
4. Friedman CP, France CL, Drossman DD. A randomized comparison of alternative formats for clinical simulations. Med Decis Making 1991;11:265-72.
5. Desch LW, Esquival MT, Anderson SK. Comparison of a computer tutorial with other methods for teaching well-newborn care. Am J Dis Child 1991;145:1255-8.
6. Beckley S, Stenhouse E, Grene K. The development and evaluation of a computer-assisted teaching program for intrapartum fetal monitoring. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2000;107:1138-44.
7. Santer DM, Michaelson VE, Erkonen WE, et al. A comparison of educational interventions: multimedia textbook, standard lecture, and printed textbook. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1995;149:297-302.
8. Gilbert DA, Kolacz NG. Effectiveness of computer assisted instruction and small-group review in teaching clinical calculation. Comput Nurs 1993;11(2):72-7.
9. Nyamathi A, Chang B, Sherman B, Grech M. Computer use and nursing research. CAI versus traditional learning. West J Nurs Res 1989;11:498-501.
10. Finley JP, Sharratt GP, Nanton MA, Chen RP, Roy DL, Paterson G. Auscultation of the heart: a trial of classroom teaching vs. computer-based independent learning. Med Educ 1998;32:357-61.
11. D'Alessandro DM, Kreiter CD, Erkonen WE, Winter RJ, Knapp HR. Longitudinal follow-up comparison of educational interventions: multimedia textbook, traditional lecture, and printed textbook. Acad Radiol 1997;4:719-23.
12. Guy JF, Frisby AJ. Using interactive videodiscs to teach gross anatomy to undergraduates at the Ohio State University. Acad Med 1992;67:132-3.
13. Devitt P, Palmer E. Computer-aided learning: an overvalued educational resource? Med Educ 1999;33:136-9.
14. Lafronza VN. The interaction of adult learning styles and instructional design: implications for the design of computer-assisted instruction [dissertation]. Atlanta (GA): Univ Georgia; 1997.
15. Law M, King G, MacKinnon E, Russell D, Murphy C, Hurley P. All About Outcomes© (CD-ROM). Thorofare (NJ): Slack: 1999.
16. World Health Organization. International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. Geneva: WHO; 1980.
17. Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE, Smith K. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 1998;280:1339-46.