Excellent cross-cultural validity, intra-test reliability and construct validity of the Dutch Rivermead Mobility Index in patients after stroke undergoing rehabilitation

Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine

Volumn 40, Issue 9, 2008, Pages 727-732

  Roorda, Leo D ^a   Green, John ^b   De Kluis, Kiki R A ^c   Molenaar, Ivo W ^d   Bagley, Pam ^e   Smith, Jane ^b   Geurts, Alexander C H ^b,f  

^a JAN VAN BREEMEN INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^c SINT MAARTENSKLINIEK   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD   (United Kingdom)

^f RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cerebrovascular accident; Disability evaluation; Psychometrics; Quality of life

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BARTHEL INDEX; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; DATA ANALYSIS; DUTCH RIVERMEAD MOBILITY INDEX; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; REHABILITATION CARE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; VALIDATION STUDY; AGED; CULTURAL FACTOR; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DISABILITY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; REPRODUCIBILITY; STROKE;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; AGED; CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; STROKE;

EID: 54049094875     PISSN: 16501977     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2340/16501977-0249     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Acquadro C, Jambon B, Ellis D, Marquis P. Language and translation issues. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996, p. 575-585.
2. Anderson RT, Aaronson NK, Leplege AP, Wilkin D. International use and application of generic health-related quality of life instruments. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996, p. 613-632.
3. Bullinger M, Power MJ, Aaronson NK, Cella DF, Anderson RT. Creating and evaluating cross-cultural instruments. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996, p. 659-668.
4. Collen FM, Wade DT, Robb GF, Bradshaw CM. The Rivermead Mobility Index: a further development of the Rivermead Motor Assessment. Int Disabil Stud 1991; 13: 50-54.
5. Forlander DA, Bohannon RW. Rivermead Mobility Index: a brief review of research to date. Clin Rehabil 1999; 13: 97-100.
6. Rossier P, Wade DT. Validity and reliability comparison of 4 mobility measures in patients presenting with neurologic impairment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 9-13.
7. Green J, Forster A, Young J. A test-retest reliability study of the Barthel Index, the Rivermead Mobility Index, the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale and the Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients. Disabil Rehabil 2001; 23: 670-676.
8. Hsieh CL, Hsueh IP, Mao HF. Validity and responsiveness of the rivermead mobility index in stroke patients. Scand J Rehabil Med 2000; 32: 140-142.
9. Schindl MR, Forstner C, Kern H, Zipko HT, Rupp M, Zifko UA. Evaluation of a German version of the Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) in acute and chronic stroke patients. Eur J Neurol 2000; 7: 523-528.
10. Franchignoni F, Tesio L, Benevolo E, Ottonello M. Psychometric properties of the Rivermead Mobility Index in Italian stroke rehabilitation inpatients. Clin Rehabil 2003; 17: 273-282.
11. Green J, Forster A, Bogle S, Young J. Physiotherapy for patients with mobility problems more than 1 year after stroke: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002; 359: 199-203.
12. Bagley P, Hudson M, Forster A, Smith J, Young J. A randomized trial evaluation of the Oswestry Standing Frame for patients after stroke. Clin Rehabil 2005; 19: 354-364.
13. Smith J, Brotheridge S, Young J. Patterns of hemiparesis recovery in lacunar and partial anterior circulation infarct stroke syndromes. Clin Rehabil 2001; 15: 59-66.
14. Antonucci G, Aprile T, Paolucci S. Rasch analysis of the Rivermead Mobility Index: a study using mobility measures of first-stroke inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 1442-1449.
15. Hsueh IP, Wang CH, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. Comparison of psychometric properties of three mobility measures for patients with stroke. Stroke 2003; 34: 1741-1745.
16. Chen HM, Hsieh CL, Sing KL, Liaw LJ, Chen SM, Lin JH. The test-retest reliability of 2 mobility performance tests in patients with chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007; 21: 347-352.
17. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000; 25: 3186-3191.
18. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J 1965; 14: 61-65.
19. Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Horne V. The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud 1988; 10: 61-63.
20. Wallace D, Duncan PW, Lai SM. 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 2002; 55: 922-928.
21. Sainsbury A, Seebass G, Bansal A, Young JB. Reliability of the Barthel Index when used with older people. Age Ageing 2005; 34: 228-232.
22. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH, editors. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
23. Mokken RJ. Nonparametric models for dichotomous responses. In: Hambleton RK, editor. Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer; 1997, p. 351-367.
24. Molenaar IW, Sijtsma K. User's manual MSP5 for windows. Groningen: iecProGAMMA; 2000.
25. Sijtsma K, Molenaar IW, editors. Introduction to nonparametric item response theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2002.
26. Sijtsma K, Emons WH, Bouwmeester S, Nyklicek I, Roorda LD. Nonparametric IRT analysis of Quality-of-Life Scales and its application to the World Health Organization Quality-of-Life Scale (WHOQOL-Bref). Qual Life Res 2008; 17: 275-290.
27. Hemker BT, Sijtsma K, Molenaar IW. Selection of unidimensional scales from a multidimensional item bank in the polytomous Mokken IRT model. Appl Psychol Measurement 1995; 19: 337-352.
28. Mokken RJ, editor. A theory and procedure of scale analysis with applications in political research. The Hague: Mouton; 1971.
29. Roorda LD, Jones CA, Waltz M, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM, van der Eijken JW, et al. Satisfactory cross cultural equivalence of the Dutch WOMAC in patients with hip osteoarthritis waiting for arthroplasty. Ann Rheum Dis 2004; 63: 36-42.
30. Andrich D, editor. Rasch models for measurement. Newbury Park: Sage; 1988.
31. Cella DF, Lloyd SR, Wright BD. Cross-cuttural instrument equating: current research and future directions. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996, p. 707-715.
32. Wright BD, Stone MH, editors. Best test design. Chicago: MESA; 1979.
33. Wright BD, Masters GN, editors. Rating scale analysis. Chicago: MESA; 1982.
34. Roorda LD, Roebroeck ME, van Tilburg T, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. Measuring activity limitations in climbing stairs: development of a hierarchical scale for patients with lower-extremity disorders living at home. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 967-971.
35. Roorda LD, Roebroeck ME, van Tilburg T, Molenaar IW, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM, et al. Measuring activity limitations in walking: development of a hierarchical scale for patients with lower-extremity disorders who live at home. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 2277-2283.
36. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Jeaschke R. How to develop and validate a new health-related quality of life instrument. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996, p. 49-56.