Respondent impact on functional ability outcome measures in vision rehabilitation

Optometry and Vision Science

Volumn 84, Issue 8, 2007, Pages 721-728

  McKnight, Patrick E ^a   Babcock Parziale, Judith ^b  

^a GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SOUTHERN ARIZONA VA HEALTH CARE SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinician ratings; Generalizability theory; Measurement; Patient self report; Perceived functional ability; Rasch

Indexed keywords

FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN REHABILITATION EQUIPMENT; MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

CLINICIAN RATINGS; GENERALIZABILITY THEORY; PERCEIVED FUNCTIONAL ABILITY; REHABILITATION SERVICES;

VISION AIDS;

ARTICLE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REHABILITATION CARE; SELF REPORT; VETERAN; VISION;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; AGED; BLINDNESS; FEMALE; GENERALIZATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; VETERANS;

EID: 34547862750     PISSN: 10405488     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31812f756f     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Stelmack J. Quality of life of low-vision patients and outcomes of low-vision rehabilitation. Optom Vis Sci 2001;78:335-42.
2. Babcock-Parziale JL, Williams MD. Historical perspective on the development of outcomes measures for low-vision and blind rehabilitation in the Department of Veterans Affairs. J Rehabil Res Dev 2006;43:793-808.
3. Misajon R, Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Barton J, Peacock S, Iezzi A, Keeffe J. Vision and quality of life: the development of a utility measure. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:4007-15.
4. Nisbett RE, Wilson TD. Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol Rev 1977;84:231-59.
5. Head DN, Babcock JL, Goodrich GL, Boyless JA. A geriatric assessment of functional status in vision rehabilitation. J Vis Impair Blind 2000;94:357-71.
6. Babcock-Parziale J, Cunningham V. Understanding change in self-perceived functional status in veterans following low-vision rehabilitation. Paper presented at the American Academy of Optometry, December 2003.
7. Babcock-Parziale J, McKnight PE, Head DN. Evaluating psychometric properties of a clinical and a self-report blind rehabilitation outcome measure. J Rehabil Res Dev 2005;42:487-98.
8. Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 1969;9:179-86.
9. Rasch G. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: Denmark Paedagogiske Institute; 1960.
10. Cronbach LJ, Gleser GC, Nanda H, Rajaratnam N. The Dependability of Behavioral Measurements: Theory of Generalizability for Scores and Profiles. New York: Wiley; 1972.
11. Grey N, Kennedy P. The functional independence measure: a comparative study of clinician and self ratings. Paraplegia 1993;31:457-61.
12. Granger CV, Hamilton BB. The uniform data system for medical rehabilitation report of first admissions for 1992. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1994;73:51-5.
13. Doctor JN, Wolfson AM, McKnight P, Burns SP. The effect of inaccurate FIM instrument ratings on prospective payment: a study of clinician expertise and FIM rating difficulty as contributing to inaccuracy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84:46-50.
14. Hoeymans N, Feskens EJ, van den Bos GA, Kromhout D. Measuring functional status: cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between performance and self-report (Zutphen Elderly Study 1990-1993). J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:1103-10.