Function and disability in late life: Comparison of the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument to the Short-Form-36 and the London Handicap Scale

Disability and Rehabilitation

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 362-370

  Dubuc, Nicole ^a   Haley, Stephen M ^a   Ni, Pengsheng ^a   Kooyoomjian, Jill T ^a   Jette, Alan M ^a  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DEMOGRAPHY; DISABILITY; FEMALE; FREQUENCY ANALYSIS; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PHYSICAL CAPACITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ADAPTATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DISABILITY EVALUATION; DISABLED PERSONS; FEMALE; GERIATRIC ASSESSMENT; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 1842731754     PISSN: 09638288     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09638280410001658667     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Hébert R, Brayne C, Spiegelhalter D. Incidence of functional decline and improvement in a community-dwelling, very elderly population. American Journal of Epidemiology 1997; 145: 935-944.
2. Avlund K, Thudium D, Davidsen M, Fuglsang-Sorensen B. Are self-ratings of functional ability reliable? Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 1995; 2: 10-16.
3. Crawford SL, Jette AM, Tennstedt SL. Test-retest reliability of self-reported disability measures in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1997; 45: 338-341.
4. Lindeboom R, Vermeulen M, Holman R, De Haan RJ. Activities of daily living instruments: Optimizing scales for neurologic assessments. Neurology 2003; 60: 738-742.
5. Haley SM, Langmuir L. How do current post-acute functional assessments compare with the activity dimensions of the international classification on functioning and disability (ICIDH-2)? Journal of Rehabilitation Outcome Measurement 2000; 4: 51-56.
6. O'Mahony PG, Rodgers H, Thomson RG, Dobson R, James OF. Is the SF-36 suitable for assessing health status of older stroke patients? Age & Ageing 1998; 27: 19-22.
7. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, O'Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, Westlake L. Validating the SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire: New Outcome Measure for Primary Care. BMJ 1992; 305(6846): 160-164.
8. Jette AM, Haley SM, Coster WJ, Kooyoomjian JT, Levenson S, Heeren T. Late Life Function and Disability Instrument: I. Development and evaluation of the disability component. Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences 2002; 57A: M209-M216.
9. Haley SM, Jette AM, Coster WJ, Kooyoomjian JT, Levenson S, Heeren T. Late Life Function and Disability Instrument: II Development and evaluation of the function component. Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences 2002; 57A: M217-M222.
10. Nagi SZ. Disability concepts revisited: Implications for prevention. In Pope AM, Tarlov AR (eds) Disability in America: Toward a national agenda for prevention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991; 309-327.
11. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: WHO, 2001.
12. Ware JS, Kisinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, 1993.
13. Haley SM, McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning scale (PF-10): I. Unidimensionality and reproductibility of the Rasch item scale. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1994; 47: 671-684.
14. McHorney CA., Haley SM, Ware JE. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functionning Scale (PF-10): II. Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1997; 50: 451-461.
15. Harwood RH, Rogers A, Dickinson E, Ebrahim S. Measuring handicap: The London handicap scale, a new outcome measure for chronic disease. Quality in Health Care 1994; 3: 11-16.
16. Harwood RH, Gompertz P, Ebrahim S. Handicap one year after a stroke: Validity of a new scale. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 1994; 57: 825-829.
17. Harwood RH, Gowpertz P, Pound P, Ebrahim S. Determinants of handicap 1 and 3 years after a stoke. Disability and Rehabilitation 1997; 19: 205-211.
18. Lincoln NB, Flannaghan T. Cognitive behavioral psychotherapy for depression following stroke. A randomized controlled trial. Stroke 2003; 34: 111-115.
19. Sturm JW, Dewey HM, Donnan GA, Macdonell RAL, McNeil JJ, Thrift AG. Handicap after stroke: How does it relate to disability, perception of recovery, and stroke subtype? The North East Melbourne Stroke Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Stroke 2002; 33: 762-768.
20. Sturm JW, Osborne RH, Dewey HM, Dorman GA, Macdonell RAL, Thrift AG. Brief comprehensive quality of life assessment after stroke. The assessment of quality of life instrument in the North East Melbourne Stroke Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Stroke 2002; 33: 2888-2894.
21. Pfeiffer E. A Short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1975; 23: 433-441.
22. McHorney C, Ware J, Lu R, Sherbourne C. The MOS 36-Items short-form health survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Medical Care 1994; 32: 40-66.
23. Stansfeld SA, Roberts R, Foot SP. Assessing the validity of the SF-36 general health survey. Quality of Life Research 1997; 6: 217-224.
24. Raczek AE, Ware JE, Bjorner JB, Gandek B, Haley SM, Aaronson NK. Comparison of Rasch and summated rating scales constructed from SF-36 physical functioning items in seven countries: Result from the IQOLA project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1998; 51: 1203-1214.
25. Jenkinson C, Mant J, Carter J, Wade D, Winner S. The London handicap scale: A re-evaluation of its validity using standard scoring and simple summation. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 2000; 68: 365-367.
26. Andresen EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability of disability outcomes research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2000; 81(12 suppl. 2): S15-S20.
27. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: Are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research 1995; 4: 293-307.
28. Wright B, Masters G. Rating scale analysis. Chicago, III: MESA Press, 1982.
29. Lord F. Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, 1980.
30. Dodd B, Koch W. Effects of variations in item step values on item and test information in the partial credit model. Applied Psychological Measurement 1987; 11: 371-384.
31. Murnki E. Information function of the generalized partial credit model. Applied Psychological Measurement 1993; 17: 351-363.
32. Ware JS, Kisinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, 1993.
33. Avlund K, Kreiner S, Schultz-Larsen K. Construct validation and the Rasch model: Functional ability of healthy elderly people. Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine 1993; 21: 233-245.
34. Jette AM, Assmann SF, Rooks D, Harris BA, Crawford S. Interrelationships Among Disablement Concepts. Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences 1998; 53A: M395-M404.
35. Sherman S, Reuben D. Measures of functional status in community-dwelling elders. Journal of General Internal Medicine 1998; 13: 817-823.
36. Penta M, Thonnard JL, Tesio L. ABILHAND: A Rasch-built measure of manual ability. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1998; 79: 1038-1042.
37. Dubuc N, Haley SM, Kooyoomjian JT, Jette AM. Assessing disability in older adults: The effects of asking questions with and without health attribution. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, (in press).
38. Marx RG, Hogg-Johnson S, Hudak P, Beaton D, Shields, Bombardier C, Wright JG. A comparison of patient's responses about their disability with and without attribution to their affected area. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2001; 54: 580-586.
39. Young NL, Williams JI, Yoshida KK, Bombardier C, Wright JG. The context of measuring disability: Does it matter whether capability or performance is measured? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1996; 49: 1097-1101.
40. Gloth FM III, Walston J, Meyer J, Pearson J. Reliability and validity of the frail elderly Functional Assessment Questionnaire. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 1995; 74: 45-53.
41. Cella D, Chang CH. A discussion of item response theory and its applications in health status assessment. Medical Care 2000; 38(suppl. II): II-66-II-72.
42. Garratt AM. Rasch analysis of the Roland Disability Questionnaire. Spine 2003; 28: 79-84.
43. Fraley RC, Waller NG, Brennan KA. An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2000; 78: 350-365.
44. Weimar C, Kurth T, Kraywinkel K, Wagner M, Busse O, Haberl RL, Diener HC. Assessment of functioning and disability after ischemic stroke. Stroke 2002; 33: 2053-2059.
45. McHorney CA. Health status assessment methods for adults: past accomplishments and future challenges. Annual Review of Public Health 1999; 20: 309-335.
46. McHorney CA. Methodological and psychometric issues in health status assessment across populations and applications. In: GL Albrecht, R Fitzpatrick (eds) Advances in Medical Sociology: Quality of Life in Health Care. Greenwich, CT: JAI, 1994; 281-304.
47. Sherbourne CD, Meredith LS. Quality of self-report data: A comparison of older and younger chronically ill patients. Journal of Gerontology 1992; 47: S204-S211.
48. May K, Nicewander WA. Measuring change conventionally and adaptively. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1998; 58(6): 882-897.
49. Hambleton RK. Principles and selected applications of item response theory. In: Linn RL (ed) Educational Measurement. 3rd edn. New York, NY: MacMillan, 1989; 143-200.
50. Morales LS, Reise SP, Hays R. Evaluating the equivalence of health care ratings by whites and Hispanics. Medical Care 2000; 38: 517-527.