Is patient-reported function reliable for monitoring postacute outcomes?

American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 82, Issue 8, 2003, Pages 614-621

  Andres, Patricia L ^a   Haley, Stephen M ^b   Ni, Peng Sheng ^b  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Functional Assessment; Rehabilitation; Reliability

Indexed keywords

CORRELATION METHODS; HEALTH CARE; PHYSICAL THERAPY; STATISTICAL TESTS;

CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS;

PATIENT MONITORING;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; MALE; PATIENT MONITORING; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; QUESTIONNAIRE; REHABILITATION MEDICINE; RELIABILITY; SELF EVALUATION; SELF REPORT; SUBJECT PROXY RELIABILITY; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0037768790     PISSN: 08949115     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.PHM.0000073818.34847.F0     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Fuhrer MJ: Conference report: an agenda for medical rehabilitation outcomes research. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1995;74:243-8
2. Kane R: Improving outcomes in rehabilitation: a call to arms (and legs). Med Care 1997;35:JS21-7
3. Lamb GS: Outcomes across the care continuum. Med Care 1997;35:NS106-14
4. Clancy CM, Eisenberg JM: Outcomes research: measuring the end results of health care. Science 1998;282:245-6
5. Granger CV: Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation: Guide for the Functional Independence Measure. Buffalo, State University of New York, 1987
6. Guyatt G, Sullivan MJ, Thompson PJ, et al: The 6-minute walk: a new measure of exercise capacity in patients with chronic heart failure. Can Med Assoc J 1985;132:919-23
7. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller S: SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A User's Manual. Boston, The Health Institute, 1994
8. Ware JE, Phillips J, Yody BB, et al: Assessment tools: functional health status and patient satisfaction. Am J Med Quality 1996;11:S50-3
9. World Health Organization: International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF, Final Version). Geneva, World Health Organization, 2001
10. World Health Organization: International Classification of Functioning and Disability: Beta-2 Draft. Geneva, World Health Organization, 1999
11. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Rogers W, et al: The validity and relative precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts. Med Care 1992;30:MS253-65
12. Myers AM, Holliday PJ, Harvey KA, et al: Functional performance measures: are they superior to self-assessments? J Gerontol 1993;48:M196-206
13. Voorrips LE, Ravelli ACJ, Dongelmans PCA, et al: A physical activity questionnaire for the elderly. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1990;23:974-8
14. Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, Osoba D, et al: The use of significant others as proxy raters of the quality of life of patients with brain cancer. Med Care 1997;35:490-506
15. Martin DP, Engelberg R, Agel J, et al: Development of a musculoskeletal extremity health status instrument: The Musculoskeletal Function Assessment instrument. J Orthopaed Res 1996;14:173-81
16. DiPietro L, Caspersen C, Ostfeld A, et al: A survey for assessing physical activity among older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993;25:628-42
17. Magaziner J, Simonsick M, Kashner TM, et al: Patient-proxy response comparability on measures of patient health and functional status. J Clin Epidemiol 1988;41:1065-74
18. Berlowitz DRM, Du WP, Kazis LS, et al: Health-related quality of life nursing home residents: differences in patient and provider perceptions. J Am Geriatr Soc 1995;43:799-802
19. Rothman ML, Hedrick SC, Bulcroft KA, et al: The validity of proxy-generated scores as measures of patient health status. Med Care 1991;29:115-24
20. Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, de Haan RJ, et al: Assessing quality of life after stroke: the value and limitations of proxy ratings. Stroke 1997;28:1541-9
21. Weinberger M, Samsa GP, Schmader K, et al: Comparing proxy and patients' perceptions of patients' functional status: results from an outpatient geriatric clinic. J Am Geriatr Soc 1992;50:585-8
22. Magaziner J, Zimmerman SI, Gruber-Baldini AL, et al: Proxy reporting in five areas of functional status: comparison with self-reports and observations of performance. Am J Epidemiol 1997;146:418-28
23. Dorman PJ, Waddell F, Slattery J, et al: Are proxy assessments of health status after stroke with the EuroQol questionnaire feasible, accurate, and unbiased? Stroke 1997;28:1883-7
24. Tennstedt SL, Skinner KM, Sullivan LM, et al: Response comparability of family and staff proxies for nursing home residents. Am J Public Health 1992;82:747-9
25. Slevin ML, Plant H, Lynch D, et al: Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient? Br J Cancer 1988;57:109-12
26. van Swieten J, Koudstaal P, Visser M, et al: Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 1988;19:604-7
27. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL: Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86:420-8
28. Wood-Dauphinee S, Berg K, Daley K: Monitoring status and evaluating outcomes: an overview of rating scales for the use with patients who have sustained a stroke. Topics Geriatr Rehabil 1994;10:22-41
29. Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986:307-10
30. Jette AM, Deniston OL: Inter-observer reliability of a functional status assessment instrument. J Chronic Dis 1978;31:573-80