Clinimetrics in rehabilitation medicine: Current issues in developing and applying measurement instruments

Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 193-201

  Dekker, Joost ^a   Dallmeijer, Annet J ^a   Lankhorst, Gustaaf J ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Clinical practice; Diagnostic groups; Measurement; Review

Indexed keywords

BARTHEL INDEX; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINIMETRICS; COMPUTER SYSTEM; DATA BASE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASURE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INDIVIDUALIZATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; JOB PERFORMANCE; JOB SATISFACTION; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PHYSICAL DISABILITY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE; REHABILITATION MEDICINE; RELIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; SHORT FORM 36; STANDARDIZATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VALIDATION PROCESS;

DISABILITY EVALUATION; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROGNOSIS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REHABILITATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 22644436279     PISSN: 16501977     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/16501970510035179     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Guyattt G, Kirschner B, Jaeschke R. Measuring health status: what are the necessary measurement properties. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 1341-1345.
2. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use (3rd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
3. Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PMM. On assessing responsiveness of health related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 349-362.
4. Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2002; 14: 109-114.
5. Katz PP. Introduction to special patient outcomes in rheumatology issue of arthritis care & research. Arthritis Rheum (Arthritis Care Res) 2003; 49: 1-4.
6. Bot SD, Terwee CB, van der Windt DA, Bouter LM, Dekker J, de Vet HC. Clinimetric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Rheum Dis 2004; 63: 335-341.
7. Bot SD, Terwee CB, van der Windt DA, Bouter LM, Dekker J, de Vet HC. Psychometric evaluation of self-report questionnaires - the development of a checklist. In: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Research Methodology; 2003, June 25-27, Amsterdam, NL. Amsterdam: VU University Amsterdam; 2003, p. 161-168.
8. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996; 78: 593-600.
9. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. The assessment of shoulder instability. The development and validation of a questionnaire. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999; 81: 420-426.
10. Lippitt SB, Harryman DTI, Matsen FAI. A practical tool for evaluation of function: the simple shoulder test. In: Matsen FA III, Fu FH, Hawkins RJ, eds. The shoulder: a balance of mobility and stability. Rosemont, Illinios: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1993, p. 501-518.
11. Stucki G, Grimby G. Applying the ICF in medicine. J Rehabil Med 2004; 36 (suppl 44): 5-6.
12. WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
13. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH, eds. Psychometric theory. 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
14. Tesio L. Measuring behaviours and perceptions: Rasch analysis as a tool for rehabilitation research. J Rehabil Med 2003; 35: 105-115.
15. Kucukdeveci AA, Yavuzer G, Tennant A, Suldur N, Sonel B, Arasil T. Adaptation of the modified Barthel Index for use in physical medicine and rehabilitation in Turkey. Scand J Rehabil Med 2000; 32: 87-92.
16. Laake K, Laake P, Ranhoff AH, Sveen U, Wyller TB, Bautz-Holter E. The Barthel ADL index: factor structure depends upon the category of patient. Age Ageing 1995; 24: 393-397.
17. Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD, Granger CV, Hamilton BB. The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75: 127-132.
18. Stineman MG, Jette A, Fiedler R, Granger C. Impairment-specific dimensions within the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997; 78: 636-643.
19. Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD. Performance profiles of the functional independence measure. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 72: 84-89.
20. Kucukdeveci AA, Yavuzer G, Elhan AH, Sorrel B, Tennant A. Adaptation of the Functional Independence Measure for use in Turkey. Clin Rehabil 2001; 15: 311-319.
21. Tennant A, Penta M, Tesio L, Grimby G, Thonnard JL, Slade A, et al. Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through differential item functioning within the framework of the Rasch model: the PRO-ESOR project. Med Care 2004; 42 (suppl 1): 137-148.
22. Roebroeck ME, Harlaar J, Larkhorst GJ. The application of generalizability theory to reliability assessment: an illustration using isometric force measurements. Phys Ther 1993; 73: 386-395.
23. de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Bouter LM. Current challenges in clinimetrics. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 1137-1141.
24. Dijkers MP, Yavuzer G. Short versions of the telephone motor Functional Independence Measure for use with persons with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80: 1477-1484.
25. Dijkers MP. A computer adaptive testing simulation applied to the FIM instrument motor component. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84: 384-393.
26. Dedding C, Cardol M, Eyssen IC, Dekker J, Beelen A. Validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: a client-centred outcome measurement. Clin Rehabil 2004; 18: 660-667.
27. Van Bennekom CAM, Jelles F, Larkhorst GJ. Rehabilitation Acitivies Profile. Disabil Rehabil 1995; 17: 169-175.
28. Jelles F, Van Bennekom CAM, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM, Kuik DJ. Introducing an innovatieve method in team conferences. Disabil Rehabil 1996; 18: 374-379.
29. Wikander B, Ekelund P, Milsom I. An evaluation of multidisciplinary intervention governed by Functional Independence Meausre (FIM) in incontinent stroke patients. Scand J Rehab Med 1998; 30: 15-21.
30. Ellwood PM. Outcomes management - a technology of patient experience. N Engl J Med 1988; 318: 1549-1556.
31. Hamilton BB, Laughlin JA, Fiedler, RC, Granger CV. Interrater reliability of the 7-level Functional Independence Measure. Scand J Rehabil Med 1994; 26: 115-119.
32. Wolfson AM, Doctor JN, Burns SP. Clinician judgements of functional outcomes: how bias and perceived accuracy affect rating. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81: 1567-1574.