Inter-rater agreement using the instrumental activity measure

Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 33-38

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

^a SAHLGRENSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

IADL; Instrumental activities; Interview assessment; Reliability; Stroke

Indexed keywords

EID: 0842325344     PISSN: 11038128     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/110381200443607     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. van Herk IEH, Arendzen JH. Measures to assess functional capacities of stroke patients living at home: a review of the literature. J Rehabil Sci 1995; 8: 66-71.
2. Lewinter M, Mikkelsen S. Therapists and the rehabilitation process after stroke. Disabil Rehabil 1995; 17: 211-216.
3. Wade DT. Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
4. 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: 1843-1849.
5. Corr S, Bayer A. Poor functional status of stroke patients after hospital discharge: scope for intervention? Br J Occup Ther 1992; 55: 383-385.
6. Elmståhl S, Sommer M, Hagberg B. A 3 year follow up of stroke patients: relationships between activities of daily living and personality characteristics. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 1996; 22: 233-244.
7. Lindmark B, Hamrin E. A five-year follow-up of stroke survivors: motor function and activities of daily living. Clin Rehabil 1995; 9: 1-9.
8. Hamilton BB, Granger CV, et al. A uniform national system for medical rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer MJ editor. Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurement. Baltimore: Brookes, 1987: 137-147.
9. Grimby G, Andren E, Holmgren E, Wright B, Linacre JM, Sund W. Structure of a combination of functional independence measure and instrumental activity measure items in community-living persons: a study of individuals with cerebral palsy and spina bifida. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 1109-1114.
10. Svensson E. Analysis of systematic and random differences between paired ordinal categorical data [thesis]. Gothenburg: Gothenburg University; 1993.
11. Polit D, Hungler B. Nursing research, principles and methods. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Company, 1983.; 382-408
12. Nachmias C, Nachmias D. Research methods in the social science. 2nd ed. New York: St Martins Press, 1981.
13. Johnston MV, Keith RA, Hinderer SR. Measurement standards for interdisciplinary medical rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1992; 73 Suppl: 3-23.
14. Smith RO. The science of occupational therapy assessment. Occup Ther J Res 1992; 12: 3-15.
15. Fisher A. Functional Measures, part 1: What is function. What should we measure, and how should we measure it? Am J Occup Ther 1992; 46: 183-185.
16. Smith D, Clark MS. Competence and performance in activities of daily living of patients following rehabilitation from stroke. Disabil Rehabil 1995; 17: 15-23.
17. Eakin P. Problems with assessments of activities of daily living. Br J Occup Ther 1989; 52: 50-54.
18. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring health; a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
19. Unsworth CA. The concept of function. Br J Occup Ther 1993; 56: 287-292.
20. Daving Y, Andrén E, Nordholm L, Grimby G Reliability of an interview approach to Functional Independence Measure.
21. Guide for the uniform data set for medical rehabilitation (adult FIM), version 4.0. Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo, 1993.
22. Kazdin AE. Artefact, bias and complexity of assessment: the ABCs of reliability. J Appl Behav Anal 1977; 10: 141-150.
23. 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: 487-494.
24. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960; 20: 37-46.
25. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportion. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1981; 212-236.
26. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990; 43: 551-558.
27. Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fiedler RC. The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 1226-1232.
28. Avlund K, Schultz-Larsen K, Kreiner S. The measurement of instrumental ADL: content validity and construct validity. Ageing Clin Exp Res 1993; 5: 371-383.