Determination of the minimal clinically important difference in the FIM instrument in patients with stroke

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 87, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 32-39

  Beninato, Marianne ^a,e   Gill Body, Kathleen M ^a   Salles, Sara ^b   Stark, Paul C ^c   Black Schaffer, Randie M ^d   Stein, Joel ^d  

^a MGH INSTITUTE OF HEALTH PROFESSIONS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^c TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d and Red Sox Foundation and Massachusetts General Hospital Home Base Program   (United States)

^e Graduate Programs in Physical Therapy   (United States)

Author keywords

Outcome assessment (health care); Rehabilitation; Sensitivity and specificity; Stroke

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASURE; HUMAN; LONG TERM CARE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; STROKE; STROKE PATIENT;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; COGNITION; COHORT STUDIES; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOTOR ACTIVITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PHYSICAL THERAPY MODALITIES; PROBABILITY; PROGNOSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SEX FACTORS; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 30144434925     PISSN: 00039993     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.08.130     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. American Heart Association Heart disease and stroke statistics-2003 update 2002 AHA Dallas
2. R. Jaeschke, J. Singer, G.H. Guyatt Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference Control Clin Trials 10 1989 407 415
3. R.D. Hays, J.M. Woolley The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics 18 2000 419 423
4. C.V. Granger, B.B. Hamilton, R.A. Keith, M. Zielezny, F.S. Sherwin Advances in functional assessment for medical rehabilitation Top Geriatr Rehabil 1 1986 59 74
5. G.E. Gresham, P.W. Duncan, W.B. Stanton Post-stroke rehabilitation. Clinical practice guideline no. 16. 1995 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Rockville AHCPR Publication No. 95-0662.
6. B.B. Hamilton, J.A. Laughlin, R.C. Fiedler, C.V. Granger Interrater reliability of the 7-level Functional Independence Measure (FIM) Scand J Rehabil Med 26 1994 115 119
7. K.J. Ottenbacher, Y. Hsu, C.V. Granger, R.C. Fiedler The reliability of the functional independence measure a quantitative review Arch Phys Med Rehabil 77 1996 1226 1232
8. T.A. Dodds, D.P. Martin, W.C. Stolov, R.A. Deyo A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients Arch Phys Med Rehabil 74 1993 531 536
9. A.W. Heinemann, J.M. Linacre, B.D. Wright, B.B. Hamilton, C. Granger Relationships between impairment and physical disability as measured by the functional independence measure Arch Phys Med Rehabil 74 1993 566 573
10. D. Kidd, G. Stewart, J. Baldry The Functional Independence Measure a comparative validity and reliability study Disabil Rehabil 17 1995 10 14
11. J.J. van der Putten, J.C. Hobart, J.A. Freeman, A.J. Thompson Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel index and the Functional Independence Measure J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 66 1999 480 484
12. J.C. Hobart, D.L. Lamping, J.A. Freeman Evidence-based measurement which disability scale for neurologic rehabilitation? Neurology 57 2001 639 644
13. D. Wallace, P.W. Duncan, S.M. Lai 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 responsiveness J Clin Epidemiol 55 2002 922 928
14. D.E. Beaton, C. Bombardier, J.N. Katz OMERACT MCID Working Group Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. Minimal Clinically Important Difference J Rheumatol 28 2001 400 405
15. G. Wells, D. Beaton, B. Shea Minimal clinically important differences review of methods J Rheumatol 28 2001 406 412
16. G. Wells, J. Anderson, D. Beaton Minimal clinically important difference module summary, recommendations, and research agenda J Rheumatol 28 2001 452 454
17. J.H. van der Lee, R.C. Wagenaar, G.J. Lankhorst, T.W. Vogelaar, W.L. Deville, L.M. Bouter Forced use of the upper extremity in chronic stroke patients results from a single-blind randomized clinical trial Stroke 30 1999 2369 2375
18. P.W. Stratford, F.M. Binkley, D.L. Riddle Health status measures strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores Phys Ther 76 1996 1109 1123
19. R.A. Deyo, R.M. Centor Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change an analogy to diagnostic test performance J Chronic Dis 39 1986 897 906
20. P.W. Stratford, J.M. Binkley, D.L. Riddle, G.H. Guyatt Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire Part 1 Phys Ther 78 1998 1186 1196
21. D.E. Beaton Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness Spine 25 2000 3192 3199
22. M.M. Ward, A.S. Marx, N.N. Barry Identification of clinically important changes in health status using receiver operating characteristic curves J Clin Epidemiol 53 2000 279 284
23. R. Jaeschke, G.H. Guyatt, D.L. Sackett The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? JAMA 271 1994 703 707
24. J.D. Lurie, H.C. Sox Principles of medical decision making Spine 24 1999 493 498
25. D.L. Simel, G.P. Samsa, D.B. Matchar Likelihood ratios with confidence sample size estimation for diagnostic test studies J Clin Epidemiol 44 1991 763 770
26. T.J. Fagan Nomogram for Bayes theorem [letter] N Engl J Med 293 1975 257
27. M.P. Alexander Stroke rehabilitation outcome. A potential use of predictive variables to establish levels of care Stroke 25 1994 128 134
28. L. Han, D. Law-Gibson, M. Reding Key neurological impairments influence function-related group outcomes after stroke Stroke 33 2002 1920 1924
29. M.G. Stineman, C.J. Tassoni, J.J. Escarce Development of function-related groups version 2.0 a classification system for medical rehabilitation Health Serv Res 32 1997 529 548
30. D.E. Beaton, M. Boers, G.A. Wells Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) a literature review and directions for future research Curr Opin Rheumatol 14 2002 109 114
31. G.R. Norman, P. Stratford, G. Regehr Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change the lesson of Cronbach J Clin Epidemiol 50 1997 869 879
32. M. Ross Relationship of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories Psychol Rev 96 1989 341 357
33. C.K. Kwoh, G.T. O'Connor, M.G. Regan-Smith Concordance between clinician and patient assessment of physical and mental health status J Rheumatol 19 1992 1031 1037
34. M.L. Slevin, H. Plant, D. Lynch, J. Drinkwater, W.M. Gregory Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient? Br J Cancer 57 1988 109 112
35. F. Wolfe, T. Pincus Listening to the patient a practical guide to self-report questionnaires in clinical care Arthritis Rheum 42 1999 1797 1808
36. D.L. Riddle, P.W. Stratford, J.M. Binkley Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire Part 2 Phys Ther 78 1998 1197 1207