Initial validation of the Swedish version of the London Handicap Scale

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 15, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 1251-1256

  Westergren, Albert ^a,b   Hagell, Peter ^a,c  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b CENTRAL HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^c LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

London Handicap Scale; Outcome assessment; Sweden; Validation studies

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DISABLED PERSON; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SWEDEN; VALIDATION STUDY;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; DISABLED PERSONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SWEDEN;

EID: 39049185116     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-006-0054-4     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. WHO. International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps: A Manual of Classification Relating to the Consequences of Disease. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1980.
2. Harwood RH, Gompertz P, Ebrahim S. Handicap one year after stroke: validity of a new scale. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1994; 57: 825-829.
3. Harwood RH, Jitapunkul S, Dickinson E, Ebrahim S. Measuring handicap: motives, methods, and a model. Qual Health Care 1994; 3: 53-57.
4. Harwood RH, Rogers A, Dickinson E, Ebrahim S. Measuring handicap: the London Handicap Scale, a new outcome measure for chronic disease. Qual Health Care 1994; 3: 11-16.
5. WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002.
6. Dahl TH. International classification of functioning, disability and health: an introduction and discussion of its potential impact on rehabilitation services and research. J Rehabil Med 2002; 34: 201-204.
7. Perenboom RJM, Chorus AMJ. Measuring participation according to the International Classfication of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25: 577-587.
8. Bent N, Tennant A, Swift T, Posnett J, Scuffham P, Chamberlain MA. Team approach versus ad hoc health services for young people with physical disabilities: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2002; 360: 1280-1286.
9. D'alisa S, Baudo S, Mauro A, Miscio G. How does stroke restrict participation in long-term post-stroke survivors? Acta Neurol Scand 2005; 112: 157-162.
10. Lo R, Harwood R, Woo J, Yeung F, Ebrahim S. Cross-cultural validation of the London Handicap Scale in Hong Kong Chinese. Clin Rehab 2001; 15: 177-185.
11. Pajalic Z, Karlsson S, Westergren A. Functioning and subjective health among stroke survivors after discharge from hospital. J Adv Nurs; in press.
12. Sonn U. Longitudinal studies of dependence in daily life activities among elderly persons. Scand J Rehabil Med Suppl 1996; 34: 1-35.
13. Jenkinson C, Mant J, Carter J, Wade D, Winner S. The London handicap scale: a re-evaluation of its validity using standard scoring and simple summation. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000; 68: 365-367.
14. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller KD. A 12-item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996; 34: 220-233.
15. McKenna SP, Doward LC. Integrating patient-reported outcomes. Value Health 2004; 7: S9-S12.
16. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to their Development and Use. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
17. Holmes W, Shea J. Performance of a new, HIV/AIDS-targeted quality of life (HAT-QoL) instrument in asymptomatic seropostivie individuals. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 561-571.
18. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 1994; 4(4): 293-307.
19. Andresen EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81: S15-S20.
20. Cardol M, de Haan RJ, de Jong BA, van den Bos GA, de Groot IJ. Psychometric properties of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 210-216.
21. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2: 1-74.
22. Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 2002; 11: 193-205.
23. Jette AM, Haley SM, Kooyoomjian JT. Are the ICF activity and participation dimensions distinct? J Rehabil Med 2003; 35: 145-149.
24. Hobart JC, Williams LS, Moran K, Thompson AJ. Quality of life measures after stroke. Uses and abuses of the SF-36. Stroke 2002; 33: 1348-1356.
25. Dubuc N, Haley S, Ni P, Kooyoomjian J, Jette A. Function and disability in late life: comparison of the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument to the Short-Form-36 and the London Handicap Scale. Disabil Rehabil 2004; 26(6): 362-370.
26. Harwood RH, Carr AJ, Thompson PW, Ebrahim S. Handicap in inflammatory arthritis. Br J Rheumatol 1996 Sep; 35(9): 891-897.
27. Harwood RH, Ebrahim S. A comparison of the responsiveness of the Nottingham extended activities of daily living, London handicap scale and SF-36. Disabil Rehabil 2000; 22(17): 786-793.