Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF activity

Disability and Rehabilitation

Volumn 27, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 315-340

  Salter, Katherine ^a   Jutai, J W ^a,b   Teasell, R ^a,b   Foley, N C ^a   Bitensky, J ^a   Bayley, M ^c  

^a ST JOSEPH S HEALTH CENTRE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^c TORONTO REHABILITATION INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADL DISABILITY; BALANCE DISORDER; BARTHEL INDEX; BECK DEPRESSION INVENTORY; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CONSENSUS; DISABILITY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FRENCHAY ACTIVITIES INDEX; FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASURE; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MINI MENTAL STATE EXAMINATION; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; PUBLISHING; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; RIVERMEAD MOBILITY INDEX; STROKE; UNITED KINGDOM;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; CEREBROVASCULAR DISORDERS; DISABILITY EVALUATION; DISABLED PERSONS; EVALUATION STUDIES; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; MALE; ONTARIO; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PRACTICE GUIDELINES; PSYCHOMETRICS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

EID: 19044366104     PISSN: 09638288     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09638280400008545     Document Type: Review

References (150)

1. van der Putten JMF, Hobart JC, Freeman JA, Thompson AJ. Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1999;66:480-484.
2. Dijkers M, Kropp GC, Esper RM, Yavuzer G, et al. Reporting on reliability and validity of outcome measures in medical rehab-ilitation research. Disability and Rehabilitation 2002;24:819-827.
3. Frytak J. Measurement. Journal of Rehabilitation Outcomes Measurement 2000;4:15-31.
4. Andresen EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2000;81:S15-S20.
5. Johnston MV, Keith RA, Hinderer SR. Measurement standards for interdisciplinary medical rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1992;73:3-23.
6. Law M. Measurement in occupational therapy: Scientific criteria for evaluation. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy 1987;54:133-138.
7. Teasell R, issue editor. Stroke Rehabilitation Evidence-Based Review: Part I. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 2003;10:1-78.
8. Teasell R, issue editor. Stroke Rehabilitation Evidence-Based Review: Part II. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 2003;10:1-129.
9. Jutai J, Teasell R. The necessity and limitations of evidence-based practice in stroke rehabilitation. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 2003;10:71-78.
10. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001.
11. World Health Organization. Towards a Common Language for Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2002.
12. Finch E, Brooks D, Stratford PW, Mayo NE. Physical Rehabilitations Outcome Measures. A Guide to Enhanced Clinical Decision-Making. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Physiotherapy Association, 2002.
13. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Legro MW. The proximal-distal continuum of multiple health outcome measures: the case of cataract surgery. Medical Care 1995;33:AS236-AS244.
14. Roberts L, Counsell R. Assessment of clinical outcomes in acute stroke trials. Stroke 1998;28:986-991.
15. Torenbeek M, Caulfield B, Garrett M, van Harten W. Current use of outcome measures for stroke and low back pain rehabilitation in five European countries: first results of the ACROSS project. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 2001;24:95-101.
16. van Wijck FMJ, Pandyan AD, Johnson GR, Barnes MP. Assessing motor deficits in neurological rehabilitation: patterns of instrument usage. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2001;15:23-30.
17. Haigh R, Tennant A, Biering-Sorensen, Grimby G, Marincek C, Phillips S, et al. The use of outcome measures in physical medicine and rehabilitation within Europe. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2001;33:278.
18. Sanders C, Egger M, Donovan J, Tallon D, Frankel S. Reporting on quality of life in randomized controlled trials: a bibiographic study. British Medical Journal 1998; 317:1191-1194.
19. Duncan PW, Jorgensen HS, Wade DT. Outcome measures in acute stroke trials. A systematic review and some recommendations to improve practice. Stroke 2000;31: 1429-1438.
20. Buck D, Jacoby A, Massey A, Ford G. Evaluation of Measures used to assess quality of life after stroke. Stroke 2000;31:2004-2010.
21. Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A, Fitzpatrick R. Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ 2002;324:1417-1422.
22. Stucki G, Ewert T, Cieza A. Value and application of the ICF in rehabilitation medicine. Disability and Rehabilitation 2003;25:628-634.
23. Granlund M, Eriksson L, Ylven R. Utility of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health's participation dimension in assigning ICF codes to items from extant rating instruments. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2004;36:130-137.
24. Cieza A, Brockow T, Ewert T, Amman E, Kollerits B, Chatterji S, et al. Linking health-status measurements to the International classification of functioning, disability and health. J Rehabil Med 2002;34:205-210.
25. Law M. Evidence-based Rehabilitation. A Guide to Practice. Thorofare, NJ: Slack Press, 2002.
26. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluation of patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment 1998;2:1-74.
27. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health. A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
28. Lorentz WJ, Scanlan JM, Borson S. Brief screening tests for dementia. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 2002;47:723-733.
29. Segal ME, Gillard M, Schall RR. Telephone and in-person proxy agreement between stroke patients and caregivers for the Functional Independence Measure. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1996;75:208-212.
30. Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, de Haan RJ, Limburg M. Assessing quality of life after stroke. The value and limitations of proxy ratings. Stroke 1997;28:1541-1549.
31. Hachisuka K, Ogata H, Ohkuma H, Tanaka S, Dozono K. Test-retest and inter-method reliability of the self-rating Barthel Index. Clinical Rehabilitation 1997;11:28-35.
32. McGinnis GE, Seward ML, DeJong G, Osberg S. Program evaluation of physical medicine and rehabilitaiton departemtns using self-report Barthel. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1986;67:125.
33. Collen FM, Wade DT, Bradshaw CM. Mobility after stroke: reliability of measures of impairment and disability. International Disabilities Studies 1990;12:6-9.
34. Jorgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Vive-Larsen J, Stoier M, Olsen TS. Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke. Part II: time course of recovery. The Copenhagen stroke study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1995;76:406-412.
35. Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Ahmed S, Gordon C, Higgins J, McEwen S, et al. Disablement following stroke. Disability and Rehabilitation 1999;21:258-268.
36. Jette AM, Haley SM, Kooyoomjian JT. Are the ICF activity and participation dimensions distinct? Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2003;35:145-149.
37. Whiteneck G. Conceptual and definitional issues in post-acute care outcomes assessment. Paper Presented at the Outcomes Research in Post-Acute Care: The Intersection of Science, Policy and Practice Conference. Washington, DC.
38. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF36) I: Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care 1992;30:473-483.
39. Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, Johnson D, Embretson S, Laster LJ. The Stroke Impact Scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity and sensitivity to change. Stroke 1999; 30:2131-2140.
40. Williams LS, Weinberger M, Harris LE, Biller J. Measuring quality of life in a way that is meaningful to stroke patients. Neurology 1999;53:1839-1843.
41. Salter K, Jutai J, Teasell R, et al. Issues for Selection of Outcome Measures in Stroke Rehabilitation: ICF Participation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 2005;27:313-340.
42. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional Evaluation: The Barthel Index. Maryland State Medical Journal 1965;14: 61-65.
43. Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Horne V. The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. International Disabilities Studies 1988;10:61-63.
44. Duncan PW, Samsa G, Weinberger M, Goldstein L, Bonito A, Witter DM, et al. Health status of individuals with mild stroke. Stroke 1997;28:740-745.
45. Granger CV, Devis LS, Peters MC, Sherwood CC, et al. Stroke rehabilitation: analysis of repeated Barthel index measures. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1979;60:14-17.
46. Sulter G, Steen C, deKeyser J. Use of the Barthel Index and Modified Rankin Scale in acute stroke trials. Stroke 1999; 30:1538-1541.
47. Berg KO, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JL, Maki B. Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiotherapy Canada 1989;41:304-311.
48. Berg KO, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JL. The Balance Scale: Reliability assessment with elderly residents and patients with acute stroke. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 1995;27:27-36.
49. Juneja G, Czyrny JJ, Linn RT. Admission balance and outcomes of patients admitted for acute inpatient rehabilitation. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1998;77:388-393.
50. Berg KO, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JL, Maki B. Measuring balance in the elderly: validation of an instrument. Canadian Journal of Public Health 1992;83:S7-S11.
51. Zwick D, Rochelle A, Choksi A, Domowicz J. Evaluation and treatment of balance in the elderly: A review of the efficacy of the Berg Balance Test and Tai Chi Quan. Neurorehabilitation 2000;15:49-56.
52. Whitney SL, Poole JL, Cass SP. A review of balance instruments for older adults. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 1998;52:666-671.
53. Nakamura D, Holm M, Wilson A. Measures of balance and fear of falling in the elderly: A review. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics 1998;15:17-32.
54. Wee JYM, Bagg SD, Palepu A. The Berg Balance Scale as a predictor of length of stay and discharge in an acute stroke rehabilitation setting. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1999;80:448-452.
55. Wee JYM, Wong H, Palepu A. Validation of the Berg Balance Scale as a predictor of length of stay and discharge destination in stroke rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2003;84:731-735.
56. Mao HF, Hsueh IP, Tang PF, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. Analysis and comparison of the psychometric properties of three balance measures for stroke patients. Stroke 2002;33: 1022-1027.
57. Gowland C, Stratford PW, Ward M, Moreland J, Torresin W, Van Hullenaar S, et al. Measuring physical impairment and disability with the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment. Stroke 1993;24:58-63.
58. Gowland C, Van Hullenaar S, Torresin W, Moreland J, et al. Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment. Development, Validation and Administration Manual. Hamilton, Ontario: Chedoke-McMaster Hospitals and McMaster University, 1995.
59. Cole B, Finch E, Gowland C, Mayo N. Physical Rehabilitation Outcome Measures. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Physical Therapy Association, 1994.
60. Poole JL, Whitney SL. Assessments of motor function post stroke: A review. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics 2001;19:1-22.
61. Valach L, Signer S, Hartneier A, Hofer K, Steck GC. Chedoke-McMaster stroke assessment and modified Barthel Index self-assessment in patients with vascular brain damage. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 2003;26:93-99.
62. Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD, Granger CV, Hamilton BB. The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1994;75:127-132.
63. Granger CV, Cotter AC, Hamilton BB, Fiedler RC. Functional Assessment Scales: a study of persons after stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1993;74:133-138.
64. Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Freeman JA, Langdon DW, McLellan DL, Greenwood RJ, et al. Evidence-based measurement. Which disability scale for neurologic rehabilitation? Neurology 2001;57:644.
65. Cavanagh SJ, Hogan K, Gordon V, Fairfax J. Stroke-specific FIM models in an urban population. Journal of Neurological Nursing 2000;32:17-21.
66. Kidd D, Stewart G, Baldry J, Johnson J, Rossiter D, Petruckevitch A, et al. The Functional Independence Measure: a comparative validity and reliability study. Disability and Rehabilitation 1995;17:10-14.
67. Gosman-Hedstrom G, Svensson E. Parallel reliability of the Functional Independence Measure and the Barthel ADL Index. Disability and Rehabilitation 2000;22:702-715.
68. Hsueh IP, Lin JH, Jeng JS, Hsieh CL. Comparison of the psychometric characteristics of the Functional Independence Measure, 5-item Barthel index and 10-item Barthel Index in patients with stroke. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 2002;73:188-190.
69. Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fiedler RC. The reliability of the Functional Independence Measure: A quantitative review. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1996;77:1226-1232.
70. Wallace D, Duncan PW, Lai SM. Comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the motor component of the Functional Independence Measure in stroke: the impact of using different methods for measuring reponsiveness. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2002;55: 922-928.
71. Holbrook M, Skilbeck CE. An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age and Aging 1983;12:166-170.
72. Wade DT, Leigh-Smith J, Langton-Hewer R. Social activities after stroke: measurement and natural history using the Frenchay Activities Index. International Rehabilitation Medicine 1985;1:176-181.
73. Segal ME, Schall RR. Determining functional/health status and its relation to disability in stroke survivors. Stroke 1994; 25:2391-2397.
74. Wade DT. Measurement in Neurological Rehabilitation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
75. Piercy M, Carter J, Mant J, Wade DT. Inter-rater reliability of the Frenchay Activities Index in patients with stroke and their carers. Clinical Rehabilitation 2000;14:433-440.
76. Green J, Forster A, Young I. A test-retest reliability study of the Barthel Index, the Rivermead Mobility Index, the Nottingham extended activities of daily living scale and the Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients. Disability and Rehabilitation 2001;23:670-676.
77. Rankin J. Cerebral vascular accidents in patients over the age of 60 II: prognosis. Scottish Medical Journal 1957;2:200-215.
78. Van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJA, van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 1988;19:604-607.
79. Bamford JM, Sandercock P, Warlow CP, Slattery J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients (letter). Stroke 1989;20:828.
80. de Haan RJ, Limburg M, Bossuyt P, van der Meulen J, Aaronson NK. The clinical meaning of Rankin 'handicap' grades after stroke. Stroke 1995;26:2027-2030.
81. Wolfe CDA, Taub NA, Woodrow EJ, Burney PGJ. Assessment of scales of disability and handicap for stroke patients. Stroke 1991;22:1242-1244.
82. Wilson JT, Hareendran A, Grant M, Baird T, et al. Improving the assessment of outcomes in stroke: Use of structured interview to assign grades on the Modified Rankin Scale. Stroke 2002;33:2243-2246.
83. Shapero Sabari J. Motor Recovery After Stroke. In: J Van Deusen, D Brunt, (eds) Assessment in Occupational Therapy and Physical Therapy. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: W.B. Saunders Co., 1997; pp 249-293.
84. Lincoln N, Leadbitter D. Assessment of motor function in stroke patients. Physiotherapy 1979;65:48-51.
85. Collin C, Wade DT. Assessing motor impairment after stroke: a pilot reliability study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1990;53:576-579.
86. Adams SA, Ashburn A, Pickering RM, Taylor D. The scalability of the Rivermead Motor Assessment in acute stroke patients. Clinical Rehabilitation 1997;11:42-51.
87. Adams SA, Pickering RM, Ashburn A, Lincoln NB. The scalability of the Rivermead Motor Assessment in nonacute stroke patients. Clinical Rehabilitation 1997;11:52-59.
88. Endres M, Nyary I, Banhidi M, Deak G. Stroke rehabilitation: a method and evaluation. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 1990;13:225-236.
89. Collen FM, Wade DT, Robb GF, Bradshaw CM. The Rivermead Mobility Index: A further development of the Rivermead Motor Assessment. Int Disabil Stud 1991;13: 50-54.
90. Forlander DA, Bohannon RW. Rivermead Mobility Index: a brief review of research to date. Clinical Rehabilitation 1999;13:97-100.
91. Hsueh IP, Wang CH, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. Comparison of psychometric properties of three mobility measures for patients with stroke. Stroke 2003;34:1741-1745.
92. Hsieh CL, Hsueh IP, Mao HF. Validity and responsiveness of the Rivermead Mobility Index in stroke patients. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2000;32: 140-142.
93. Franchignoni F, Tesio L, Benevolo E, Ottonello M. Psychometric properties of the Rivermead Mobility Index in Italian stroke rehabilitation inpatients. Clinical Rehabilitation 2003;17:273-282.
94. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed "Up and Go" test. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1989;67: 387-398.
95. Mathias S, Nayak USL, Isaacs B. Balance in elderly patients: the "Get up and Go" test. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1986;67:387-389.
96. Rockwood K, Awalt E, Carver D, MacKnight C. Feasibility and measurement properties of the Functional Reach and the timed Up and Go tests in the Canadian study of health and aging. Journal of Gerontology 2000;55A:M70-M73.
97. Thompson M, Medley A. Performance of community dwelling elderly on the Timed Up and Go Test. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics 1995;13:17-30.
98. Siggeirsdottir K, Jonsson BY, Jonsson H Jr, Iwarsson S. The Timed "Up and Go" is dependent on chair type. Clinical Rehabilitation 2002;16:609-616.
99. Hsueh IP, Lee MM, Hsieh CL. Psychometric characteristics of the Barthel activities of daily living index in stroke patients. Journal of the Formosa Medical Association 2001; 100:526-532.
100. Cohen MI, Marino RJ. The tools of disability outcomes research functional status measures. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2000;81:S21-S29.
101. Riddle DL, Stratford PW. Interpreting validity indexes for diagnostic tests: an illustration using the Berg Balance Test. Physical Therapy 1999;79:939-948.
102. Collin C, Davies S, Horne V, Wade DT. Reliability of the Barthel ADL Index. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 1987;10:356-357.
103. D'Olhberriague L, Litvan I, Mitsias P, Mansbach HH. A reappraisal of reliability and validity studies in stroke. Stroke 1996;27:2331-2236.
104. Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1989;42:703-709.
105. Fortinsky RH, Granger CV, Seltzer GB. The use of functional assessment in understanding home care needs. Medical Care 1981;19:489-497.
106. Shah S, Cooper B, Maas F. The Barthel Index and ADL evaluation in stroke rehabilitation in Australia, Japan, the US and the USA. The Australian Occupational Therapy Journal 1992;39:5-13.
107. Agrell B, Dehlin O. Mini Mental State Examination in geriatric stroke patients. Validity, differences between subgroups of patients, and relationships to somatic and mental variables. Aging Clinical Experimental Research 2000;12:439-444.
108. Hocking C, Williams M, Broad J, Baskett J. Sensitivity of Shah, Vanclay and Cooper's Modified Barthel Index. Clinical Rehabilitation 1999;13:141-147.
109. Cup EHC, Scholte op Reimer WJM, Thijssen MCE, van Kuyk-Minis MAH. Reliability and validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in stroke patients. Clinical Rehabilitation 2003;17:402-409.
110. Hobart JC, Thompson AJ. The five item Barthel Index. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 2001; 71:225-230.
111. Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI, Shapiro SH. Examining outcome measures in a clinical study of stroke. Stroke 1990; 21:731-739.
112. Wood-Dauphinee S, Berg KO, Bravo G, Williams JL. The Balance Scale: responsiveness to clinically meaningful changes. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation 1997;10: 35-50.
113. Stone SP, Ali B, Auberleek I, Thompsell A, Young A. The Barthel Index in clinical practice: use on a rehabilitation ward for elderly people. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 1994;28:419-423.
114. Dromerick AW, Edwards DF, Diringer MN. Sensitivity to changes in disability after stroke: A comparison of four scales useful in clinical trials. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 2003;40:1-8.
115. Anaemaet WK. Using standardized measures to meet the challenge of stroke assessment. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation 2002;18:47-62.
116. Yeo D, Faleiro R, Lincoln NB. Barthel ADL Index: a comparison of administration methods. Clinical Rehabilitation 1995;9:34-39.
117. Korner-Bitensky N, Wood-Dauphinee S. Barthel information elicited over the telephone. Is it reliable? American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1995;74:9-18.
118. Shinar D, Gross CR, Bronstein KS, Licata-Gehr EE, Eden DT, Cabrera AR, et al. Reliability of the activities of daily living scale and its use in telephone interview. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1987;68:723-728.
119. Dorevitch MI, Cossar RM, Bailey FJ, Bisset T, Lewis SJ, Wise LA, et al. The accuracy of self and informant ratings of physical functional capacity in the elderly. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1992;45:791-798.
120. Bogle-Thorbahn DB, Newton RA. Use of the Berg Balance Test to predict falls in elderly persons. Physical Therapy 1996;76:576-583.
121. Liston R, Brouwer BJ. Reliability and validity of measures obtained from stroke patients using the balance master. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1996;77: 425-430.
122. Berg KO, Maki B, Williams JL, Holliday PJ, Wood-Dauphinee S. Clinical and laboratory measures of postural balance in an elderly population. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1992;73:1073-1080.
123. Stevenson TJ. Detecting change in patients with stroke using the Berg Balance Scale. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 2001;47:29-38.
124. Au-Yeung SSY, Ng JTW, Lo SK. Does balance or motor impairment of limbs discriminate the ambulatory status of stroke survivors? American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2003;82:279-283.
125. Desrosiers J, Noreau L, Rochette A, Bravo G, Boutin C. Predictors of handicap situations following post-stroke rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation 2002;24: 774-785.
126. Shumway-Cook A, Baldwin M, Polissar NL, Gruber W. Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults. Physical Therapy 1997;79:819.
127. Stevenson TJ. Using impairment inventory scores to determine ambulation status in individuals with stroke. Physiotherapy Canada 1999;51:168-174.
128. Dodds TA, Martin DP, Stolov WC, Deyo R. A validation of the Functional Independence Measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1993;74:531-536.
129. Oczkowski W, Barreca S. The Functional Independence Measure: Its use to identify rehabilitation needs in stroke survivors. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1993;74:1291-1294.
130. Ring H, Feder M, Schwartz J, Samuels G. Functional measures of first-stroke rehabilitation inpatients: Usefulness of the Functional Independence Measure total score with a clinical rationale. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1997;78:630-635.
131. Brock JA, Goldie PA, Greenwood KM. Evaluating the effectiveness of stroke rehabilitation: choosing a discriminative measure. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2002;83:92-99.
132. Smith PM, Bennett Illig S, Fielder RC, Hamilton BB, et al. Intermodal agreement of follow-up telephone functional assessment using the functional independence measure in patients with stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1996;77:431-435.
133. Daving Y, Andren E, Nordholm L, Grimby G. Reliability of an interview approach to the Functional Independence Measure. Clinical Rehabilitation 2001;15:310.
134. Petrella RJ, Overend T, Chesworth B. FIM after hip fracture: Is telephone administration valid and sensitive to change? American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2002;81:639-644.
135. Duncan PW, Reker DM, Horner RD, Samsa G, Hoenig H, LaClair BJ, et al. Performance of a mail-administered version of a stroke-specific outcome measure: the Stroke Impact Scale. Clinical Rehabilitation 2002;16:505.
136. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet 1986;Feb 8:307-310.
137. Schuling J, de Haan RJ, Limburg M, Groenier KH. The Frenchay Activities Index; assessment of functional status in stroke patients. Stroke 1993;24:1173-1177.
138. Carter J, Mant F, Wade DT, Winner S. Comparison of the postal version of the Frenchay Activities Index with interviewer-administered version for use in people with stroke. Clinical Rehabilitation 1997;11:131-138.
139. Wyller TB, Sveen U, Bautz-Holter E. The Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients: agreement between scores by patients and by relatives. Disability and Rehabilitation 1996;18:454-459.
140. Sackley CJ, Lincoln NB. The verbal administration of the gross functional scale of the Rivermead Motor Assessment. Clinical Rehabilitation 1990;4:303.
141. Rossier P, Wade DT. Validity and reliability comparison of 4 mobility measures in patients presenting with neurologic impairment. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2001;82:9-13.
142. Antonucci G, Aprile T, Paolucci S. Rasch analysis of the Rivermead Mobility Index: A study using mobility measures of first-stroke inpatients. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2002;83:1442-1449.
143. Vaney C, Blaurock H, Gattlen B, Meisels C. Assessing mobility in multiple sclerosis using the Rivermead Mobility Index and gait speed. Clinical Rehabilitation 1996;10: 216-226.
144. Paolucci S, Grasso MG, Antonucci G, Bragoni M, Troisi E, Morelli D, et al. Mobility status after inpatient stroke rehabilitation: 1-year follow-up and prognostic factors. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2001;82: 2-8.
145. Wright J, Cross J, Lamb S. Physiotherapy outcome measure for rehabilitation of elderly people: responsiveness to change of the Rivermead Mobility Index and Barthel Index. Physiotherapy 1998;84:216-221.
146. Sommerfeld D, von Arbin MH. Disability test 10 days after acute stroke to predict early discharge home in patients 65 years and older. Clinical Rehabilitation 2001;15:528-534.
147. Lennon S, Johnson L. The modified Rivermead Mobility Index: validity and reliability. Disability and Rehabilitation 2000;22:833-839.
148. Lennon S, Hastings M. Key physiotherapy indicators for quality of stroke care. Physiotherapy 1996;82:655-664.
149. Morris S, Morris ME, Iansek R. Reliability of measurements obtained with the Timed "Up & Go" Test in people with Parkinson Disease. Physical Therapy 2001;81:810-818.
150. Nikolaus T, Bach M, Oster P, Schlierf G. Prospective value of self-report and performance-based tests of functional status for 18-month outcomes in elderly patients. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research 1996;8:271-276.