Translating measures across the continuum of care: Using Rasch analysis to create a crosswalk between the Functional Independence Measure and the Minimum Data Set

Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 467-478

  Velozo, Craig A ^a,b   Byers, Katherine L ^a   Wang, Ying Chih ^b   Joseph, Bryttnee Roberts ^b  

^a VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Activities of daily living; Crosswalk table; Functional independence measure; Item response theory; Measure; Minimum data set; Outcomes assessment; Psychometrics; Rasch analysis; Rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASURE (FIM); ITEM RESPONSE THEORY; PSYCHOMETRICS; RASCH ANALYSIS;

BIOMECHANICS; CORRELATION METHODS; NURSING; PATIENT REHABILITATION; PSYCHOLOGY COMPUTING;

PATIENT MONITORING;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CRONBACH ALPHA COEFFICIENT; DATA ANALYSIS; FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASURE; HOSPITAL PATIENT; NURSING HOME; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RASCH ANALYSIS; SAMPLE SIZE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDITY;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ATAXIA; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOMETRICS; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; WALKING;

EID: 34447562971     PISSN: 07487711     EISSN: 07487711     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2006.06.0068     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Reker DM, Reid K, Duncan PW, Marshall C, Cowper D, Stansbury J, Warr-Wing KL. Development of an integrated stroke outcomes database within the Veterans Health Administration. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42(1):77-91.
2. Grabois M. Open letter from ACRM to HCFA on proposed Medicare PPS. American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Health Care Financing Administration. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(4):567-69.
3. DeJong G. Post-Acute Care: Hearing before the Subcomm. on Health of the House Comm. on Ways and Means, 109th Cong., 1st Sess. (Jun. 16, 2005).
4. Granger CV, Hamilton BB. UDS Report. The Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation Report of First Admissions for 1990. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1992; 71(2):108-13.
5. Fiedler RC, Granger CV. Uniform data system for medical rehabilitation: Report of first admissions for 1995. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;76(1):76-81.
6. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Health Administration (VHA). VHA Directive 2000-016: Medical rehabilitation outcomes for stroke, traumatic brain injury, and lower extremity amputation patients. Washington (DC): VA, VHA; 2000.
7. Carter GM, Buntin MB, Hayden O, Paddock SM, Relles DA, Ridgeway G, Totten ME, Wynn BO. Analyses for the initial implementation for Medicare's inpatient rehabilitation prospective payment system. RAND Monograph Report No.: MR-1500-CMS. Santa Monica (CA): RAND; 2002. p. 1-360.
8. Rantz MJ, Zwygart-Stauffacher M, Popejoy LL, Mehr DR, Grando VT, Wipke-Tevis DD, Hicks LL, Conn VS, Porter R, Maas M. The minimum data set: No longer just for clinical assessment. Nurs Home Med. 1999;7(9):354-60.
9. Morris JN, Hawes C, Fries BE, Phillips CD, Mor V, Katz S, Murphy K, Drugovich ML, Friedlob AS. Designing the national resident assessment instrument for nursing homes. Gerontologist. 1990;30(3):293-307.
10. Casten R, Lawton MP, Parmelee PA, Kleban MH. Psychometric characteristics of the Minimum Data Set I: Confirmatory factor analysis. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1998;46(6):726-35.
11. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Health Administration (VHA). VHA Directive 2005-060: Implementation of the Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) assessment form (MPAF). Washington (DC): VA, VHA; 2005.
12. Stineman MG, Shea JA, Jette A, Tassoni CJ, Ottenbacher KJ, Fiedler RC, Granger CV. The Functional Independence Measure: Tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(11):1101-8.
13. 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(2):127-32.
14. Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fiedler RC. The reliability of the Functional Independence Measure: A quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(12):1226-32.
15. Hawes C, Morris JN, Phillips CD, Mor V, Fries BE, Nonemaker S. Reliability estimates for the Minimum Data Set for nursing home resident assessment and care screening (MDS). Gerontologist. 1995;35(2):172-78.
16. Stineman MG, Maislin G. Clinical, epidemiological, and policy implications of Minimum Data Set validity. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(12):1734-36.
17. Lawton MP, Casten R, Parmelee PA, Van Haitsma K, Corn J, Kleban MH. Psychometric characteristics of the Minimum Data Set II: Validity. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1998;46(6): 736-44.
18. Williams BC, Li Y, Fries BE, Warren RL. Predicting patient scores between the Functional Independence Measure and the Minimum Data Set: Development and performance of a FIM-MDS "crosswalk." Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:48-54.
19. Buchanan JL, Andres PL, Haley SM, Paddock SM, Zaslavsky AM. Evaluating the planned substitution of the Minimum Data Set-Post Acute Care for use in the rehabilitation hospital prospective payment system. Med Care. 2004;42(2):155-63.
20. Rogers JC, Green Gwinn SM, Holm MB. Comparing activities of daily living assessment instruments: FIMt, MDS, OASIS, MDS-PAC. Phys Occup Ther Geriatr. 2001;18(3): 1-25.
21. McHorney CA. Generic health measurement: Past accomplishments and a measurement paradigm for the 21st century. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(8 Pt 2):743-50.
22. Thompson B, Vacha-Haase T. Psychometrics is datametrics: Test is not reliable. Educ Psychol Meas. 2000;60(2): 174-95.
23. Hambleton RK. Principles and selected applications of item response theory. In: Linn RL, editor. Educational measurement. 3rd ed. New York (NY): Macmillan; 1989. p. 147-200.
24. Fisher WP Jr, Harvey RF, Taylor P, Kilgore KM, Kelly CK. Rehabits: A common language of functional assessment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76(2):113-22.
25. Smith RM, Taylor PA. Equating rehabilitation outcome scales: Developing common metrics. J Appl Meas. 2004; 5(3):229-42.
26. Fisher WP Jr, Eubanks RL, Marier RL. Equating the MOS SF36 and the LSU HSI Physical Functioning Scales. J Outcome Meas. 1997;1(4):329-62.
27. McHorney CA, Cohen AS. Equating health status measures with item response theory: Illustrations with functional status items. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl):II43-59.
28. McHorney CA. Use of item response theory to link 3 modules of functional status items from the Asset and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(3):383-94.
29. Wang WC, Chen CT. Item parameter recovery, standard error estimates, and fit statistics of the Winsteps program for the family of Rasch models. Educ Psychol Meas. 2005; 65(3):376-404.
30. Jette AM, Haley SM, Ni P. Comparison of functional status tools used in post-acute care. Health Care Financ Rev. 2003;24(3):13-24.
31. Wright BD, Linacre JM. Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Meas Trans. 1994;8(3).
32. Velozo CA, Magalhaes LC, Pan AW, Leiter P. Functional scale discrimination at admission and discharge: Rasch analysis of the Level of Rehabilitation Scale-III. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76(8):705-12.
33. Nilsson AL, Sunnerhagen KS, Grimby G. Scoring alternatives for FIM in neurological disorders applying Rasch analysis. Acta Neurol Scand. 2005;111(4):264-73.
34. Silverstein B, Fisher WP, Kilgore KM, Harley JP, Harvey RF. Applying psychometric criteria to functional assessment in medical rehabilitation: II. Defining interval measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992;73(6):507-18.