Comparing the Functional Independence Measure and the interRAI/MDS for use in the functional assessment of older adults: A review of the literature

BMC Geriatrics

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2009, Pages

  Glenny, Christine ^a   Stolee, Paul ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; GERIATRIC ASSESSMENT; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; AGED; GERIATRIC ASSESSMENT; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 73649139941     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712318     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2318-9-52     Document Type: Article

References (101)

1. Outcome measures in the rehabilitation of older adults. C McKnight C Powell, Reviews in Clinical Gerontology 2001 11 1 83 94
2. Predictors of rehabilitation outcomes in frail patients treated in a geriatrichospital. F Landi R Bernabei A Russo G Zuccala G Onder L Carosella M Cesari A Cocchi, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2002 50 679 684 11982668 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50162.x (Pubitemid 34298755)
3. Functional assessment in geriatrics: A review of progress and directions. S Katz MW Stroud, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1989 37 267 271 2645355
4. Outcomes during and after impatient rehabilitation: Comparison between adults and older adults. S Gosselin J Desrosiers H Crriveau R Herbert A Rochette V Provencher S Cote M Tousignant, Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2008 40 1 55 60 18176738 10.2340/16501977-0144 (Pubitemid 351200734)
5. Rehabilitation of the older stroke patient. D Ergeletzis CG Kevorkian D Rintala, American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2002 81 12 881 889 10.1097/00002060-200212000-00001 (Pubitemid 35351095)
6. Factors associated with recovery of independence among newly disabled older persons. SE Hardy TM Gill, Arch Intern Med 2005 165 106 112 15642885 10.1001/archinte.165.1.106 (Pubitemid 40096091)
7. Development of a conceptual framework for the assessment of geriatric rehabilitation outcomes. L Demers B Ska J Desrosiers Alix C Wolfson, Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 2004 38 221 237 10.1016/j.archger.2003.10.003 (Pubitemid 38456865)
8. State of the art in geriatric rehabilitation. Part 1: Review of frailty and comprehensive geriatric assessment. JL Wells JA Seabrook P Stolee MJ Borrie F Knoefel, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2003 84 890 897 10.1016/S0003-9993(02)04929-8 (Pubitemid 36682339)
9. Medical complexity and rehabilitation efficiency in geriatric inpatients. L Patrick F Knoefel P Gaskowski D Rexroth, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2001 49 1571 1477 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.4911239.x (Pubitemid 33051397)
10. An individualized approach to outcome measurement in geriatric rehabilitation. P Stolee K Stadnyk AM Myers K Rockwood, J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 1999 54 12 641 7 10647971
11. Advances in functional assessment in medical rehabilitation. CV Granger BB Hamilton M Zielezny FS Sherwin, Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation 1986 1 3 59 74
12. Integrated health information systems based on the RAI/MDS series of instruments. JP Hirdes BE Fries JN Morris K Steel V Mor D Frijters S LaBine C Schalm MJ Stones G Teare T Smith M Marhaba E Perez P Jonsson, Health Care Managament Forum 1999 12 4 30 40
13. Sharing clinical information across care settings: the birth of an integrated assessment system. LC Gray K Berg BE Fries JC Henrard JP Hirdes K Steel JN Morris, BMC Health Serv Res 2009 9 1 71 19402891 10.1186/1472-6963-9-71
14. Comparing OASIS, FIM, and MDS in assessing disability. RT Warren GA Currie, Home Care Provider 1998 3 1 47 50 9644375 10.1016/S1084-628X(98)90157-5
15. Predicting patient scores between the functional independence measure and the minimum data set: Development and performance of a FIM-MDS "Crosswalk". BC Williams Y Li BE Fries RL Warren, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1997 78 48 54 10.1016/S0003-9993(97)90009-5 (Pubitemid 27034244)
16. Comparison of functional status tools used in post-acute care. AM Jette SM Haley P Ni, Health Care Financing Review 2003 24 3 13 24 12894632
17. Comparing activities of daily living assessment instruments: FIM, MDS, OASIS, MDS-PAC. CR Rogers SM Gwinn M Holm, Physical & Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics 2001 18 3 1 25 10.1300/J148v18n03-01 (Pubitemid 33095132)
18. I McDowell C Newell, Measuring Health New York: Oxford University Press 1996
19. The tools of disability outcomes research functional status measures. ME Cohen RJ Marino, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2000 81 12 Suppl 2 21 9 10.1053/apmr.2000.20620
20. Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. FL Mahoney DA Barthel, Maryland State Medical Journal 1965 14 61 65 14258950
21. Performance profiles of the functional independence measure. CV Granger BB Hamilton JM Linacre AW Heinemann BD Wright, American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation/Association of Academic Physiatrists 1993 72 2 84 89 8476548
22. CIHI. http://www.cihi.ca
23. interRAI. http://www.interrai.org
24. Canadian Institute of Health Information, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) MDS 2.0 and RAPs Canadian Version: User Manual Ottawa: Canadian Institute of Health Information 2005
25. Designing the national resident assessment instrument for nursing homes. JN Morris C Hawes BE Fries CD Phillips V Mor S Katz K Murphy ML Drugovich AS Friedlobe, The Gerontologist 1990 30 3 293 307 2354790
26. Reliability of the interRAI suite of assessment instruments: A 12-country study of an integrated health information system. JP Hirdes G Ljunggren JN Morris DH Frijters H Finne Soveri L Gray B Bjorkgren R Gilgen, BMC Health Services Research 2008 8 277 19115991 10.1186/1472-6963-8-277
27. Convergent validity of minimum data set-based performance quality indicators in postacute care settings. JN Morris RN Jones BE Fries JP Hirdes, American Journal of Medical Quality: The Official Journal of the American College of Medical Quality 2004 19 6 242 247 15620075
28. Scaling ADLs within the MDS. JN Morris BE Fries SA Morris, The Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 1999 54 11 546 53 10619316
29. Stability of performance of activities of daily living using the MDS. MJ Graney VF Engle, The Gerontologist 2000 40 5 582 586 11037937
30. Effects of cognitive impairment on the reliability of geriatric assessments in nursing homes. CD Phillips CW Chu JN Morris C Hawes, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1993 41 2 136 142 8426035
31. The potential for using administrative and clinical data to analyze outcomes for the cognitively impaired: An assessment of the minimum data set for nursing homes. CD Phillips JN Morris, Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders 1997 11 Suppl 6 62 167
32. Minimum data set for home care: A valid instrument to assess frail older people living in the community. F Landi E Tua G Onder B Carrara A Sgadari C Rinaldi G Gambassi F Lattanzio R Bernabei, Medical Care 2000 38 12 1184 1190 11186297 10.1097/00005650-200012000-00005
33. MDS cognitive performance scale. JN Morris BE Fries DR Mehr C Hawes C Phillips V Mor LA Lipsitz, Journal of Gerontology 1994 49 4 174 82 8014392
34. Validation of the minimum data set cognitive performance scale: Agreement with the mini-mental state examination. SL Hartmaier PD Sloane HA Guess GG Koch CM Mitchell CD Phillips, The Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 1995 50 2 128 33 7874589
35. "Mini-mental state": A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. MF Folstein SE Folstein PR McHugh, J Psychiatr Res 1975 12 189 98 1202204 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
36. The test for severe impairment: an instrument for the assessment of patients with severe cognitive dysfunction. M Albert C Cohen, J Am Geriatr Soc 1992 40 449 53 1634695
37. Global deterioration scale (GDS). B Reisberg SH Ferris MJ de Leon T Crook, Psychopharmacol Bull 1998 24 661 663
38. A checklist for evaluating the usefulness of rating scales. DL Streiner, Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 1993 38 140 148
39. Differential item functioning of the functional independence measure in higher performing neurological patients. AJ Dallmeijer J Dekker LD Roorda DL Knol B van Baalen V de Groot V Schepers GJ Lankhorst, Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine: Official Journal of the UEMS European Board of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2005 37 6 346 352 16287665
40. Reliability of an interview approach to the functional independence measure. Y Daving E Andren L Nordholm G Grimby, Clinical Rehabilitation 2001 15 3 301 310 11386401 10.1191/026921501669986659 (Pubitemid 32471889)
41. A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. TA Dodds DP Martin WC Stolov RA Deyo, Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 1993 74 5 531 536 10.1016/0003-9993(93)90119-U (Pubitemid 23141404)
42. Reliability of the functional independence measure with occupational therapists. J Fricke C Unsworth D Worrell, Australian Occupational Therapy Journal 1993 40 1 7 15
43. Interrater reliability of the 7-level functional independence measure (FIM). BB Hamilton JA Laughlin RC Fiedler CV Granger, Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 1994 26 3 115 119 7801060
44. Comparison of the psychometric characteristics of the functional independence measure, 5 item barthel index, and 10 item barthel index in patients with stroke. IP Hsueh JH Lin JS Jeng CL Hsieh, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 2002 73 2 188 190 12122181 10.1136/jnnp.73.2.188 (Pubitemid 34824275)
45. Functional independence domains in patients receiving rehabilitation in skilled nursing facilities: Evaluation of psychometric properties. DU Jette RL Warren C Wirtalla, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2005 86 6 1089 1094 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.11.035 (Pubitemid 40797761)
46. Impairment-specific dimensions within the functional independence measure. MG Stineman A Jette R Fiedler C Granger, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1997 78 6 636 643 10.1016/S0003-9993(97)90430-5 (Pubitemid 27259889)
47. The functional independence measure: A comparative validity and reliability study. D Kidd G Stewart J Baldry J Johnson D Rossiter A Petruckevitch AJ Thompson, Disability and Rehabilitation 1995 17 1 10 14
48. Inter-rater agreement and stability of functional assessment in the community-based elderly. KJ Ottenbacher WC Mann CV Granger M Tomita D Hurren B Charvat, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1994 75 12 1297 1301
49. Reliability and validity of the FIM for persons aged 80 years and above from a multilevel continuing care retirement community. N Pollak W Rheault JL Stoecker, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1996 77 10 1056 1061 10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90068-4 (Pubitemid 26339631)
50. Construct validity of the functional independence measure (FIM): Questioning the unidimensionality of the scale and the "value" of FIM scores. JF Ravaud M Delcey A Yelnik, Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 1999 31 1 31 41 10230001 10.1080/003655099444704 (Pubitemid 29176922)
51. The functional independence measure: Tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories. MG Stineman JA Shea A Jette CJ Tassoni KJ Ottenbacher R Fiedler C Granger, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1996 77 11 1101 1108 10.1016/S0003-9993(96) 90130-6 (Pubitemid 26378626)
52. Functional independence measure versus short form-36: Relative responsiveness and validity. DM Aitken RW Bohannon, International Journal of Rehabilitation Research. Internationale Zeitschrift Fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue Internationale De Recherches De Readaptation 2001 24 1 65 68 11302466
53. Using the functional independence measure instrument to predict stroke rehabilitation outcomes. TM Black T Soltis C Bartlett, Rehabilitation Nursing: The Official Journal of the Association of Rehabilitation Nurses 1999 24 1 109 14 121 10754896
54. The functional independence measure: Validity of selected assessment methods applied to stroke survivors. L Brosseau P Philippe Y Boulanger, Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation 1995 11 1 75 85
55. The construct validity of the functional independence measure as applied to stroke patients. L Brosseau L Potvin P Philippe Y Boulanger E Dutil, Physiotherapy Theory & Practice 1996 12 3 161 171 10.3109/09593989609036432
56. The "value" of functional independence measure scores. WH Bunc VM Dvonch, American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation/ Association of Academic Physiatrists 1994 73 1 40 43 8305180
57. Exploring disability rating scale responsiveness II: Do more response options help? SJ Cano RJ O'Connor AJ Thompson JC Hobart, Neurology 2006 67 11 2056 2059 17159121 10.1212/01.wnl.0000247664.97643.e8 (Pubitemid 44967392)
58. Correspondence of the functional independence measure (FIM) self-care subscale with real-time observations of dementia patients' ADL performance in the home. EM Cotter LD Burgio AB Stevens DL Roth LN Gitlin, Clinical Rehabilitation 2002 16 1 36 45 11837524 10.1191/0269215502cr465oa (Pubitemid 34100549)
59. Comparison of caregiver and occupational therapist ratings of dementia patients' performance of activities of daily living. EM Cotter LD Burgio DL Roth J Gerstle P Richardson, Journal of Applied Gerontology 2008 27 2 215 225 10.1177/0733464807310681
60. Comparison of two functional independence scales with a participation measure in post-stroke rehabilitation. J Desrosiers A Rochette L Noreau G Bravo R Hebert C Boutin, Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 2003 37 2 157 172 10.1016/S0167-4943(03)00044-X (Pubitemid 36918452)
61. Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. XL Meng R Rosenthal DB Rubin, Psychology Bulletin 1992 111 172 175 10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.172
62. The functional independence measure: A comparative validity and reliability study. HG Dickson F Kohler, Disability and Rehabilitation 1995 17 8 456
63. Parallel reliability of the functional independence measure and the barthel ADL index. G Gosman-Hedstrom E Svensson, Disability and Rehabilitation 2000 22 16 702 715 10.1080/09638280050191972
64. Functional assessment scales: A study of persons after stroke. CV Granger AC Cotter BB Hamilton RC Fiedler, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1993 74 2 133 138
65. Relationships between impairment and physical disability as measured by the functional independence measure. AW Heinemann JM Linacre BD Wright BB Hamilton C Granger, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1993 74 6 566 573 10.1016/0003-9993(93)90153-2 (Pubitemid 23172757)
66. The structure and stability of the functional independence measure. JM Linacre AW Heinemann BD Wright CV Granger BB Hamilton, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1994 75 2 127 132
67. The functional independence measure in sweden: Experience for outcome measurement in rehabilitation medicine. G Grimby G Gudjonsson M Rodhe KS Sunnerhagen V Sundh ML Ostensson, Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 1996 28 2 51 62 8815989
68. Prediction of rehabilitation outcomes with disability measures. AW Heinemann JM Linacre BD Wright BB Hamilton C Granger, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1994 75 2 133 143 (Pubitemid 24061484)
69. Scoring alternatives for FIM in neurological disorders applying rasch analysis. A Lundgren-Nilsson KS Sunnerhagen G Grimby, Acta Neurologica Scandinavica 2005 111 4 264 273 15740579 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2005.00404.x (Pubitemid 40380463)
70. Cross-cultural validity of functional independence measure items in stroke: A study using rasch analysis. A Lundgren-Nilsson G Grimby H Ring L Tesio G Lawton A Slade M Penta M Tripolski F Biering-Sorensen J Carter C Marincek S Phillips A Simone A Tennant, Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine: Official Journal of the UEMS European Board of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2005 37 1 23 31 15788329
71. Cross-diagnostic validity in a generic instrument: An example from the functional independence measure in scandinavia. A Lundgren-Nilsson A Tennant G Grimby KS Sunnerhagen, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2006 4 55 10.1186/1477-7525-4-55 (Pubitemid 44524384)
72. Clinically meaningful gaps. JS Lai DT Eton, Rasch Measurement Transactions 2002 14 4 850
73. The functional independence measure: Its use to identify rehabilitation needs in stroke survivors. WJ Oczkowski S Barreca, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1993 74 12 1291 1294 10.1016/0003-9993(93)90081-K (Pubitemid 24008147)
74. Responsiveness of functional health status measures frequently used in stroke research. VP Schepers M Ketelaar JM Visser-Meily J Dekker E Lindeman, Disability and Rehabilitation 2006 28 17 1035 1040 10.1080/09638280500494694 (Pubitemid 44322639)
75. The functional independence measure used in a dutch rehabilitating stroke population; a pilot study to assess progress. KRM Streppel W Van Harten, International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 2002 25 2 87 91 12021595 10.1097/00004356-200206000-00002
76. Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: Comparison of the responsiveness of the barthel index and the functional independence measure. JJ van der Putten JC Hobart JA Freeman AJ Thompson, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 1999 66 4 480 484 10201420 10.1136/jnnp.66.4.480
77. 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. D Wallace PW Duncan SM Lai, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2002 55 9 922 928 12393081 10.1016/S0895- 4356(02)00410-9 (Pubitemid 35246564)
78. A new assessment for elders admitted to acute care: Reliability of the MDS-AC. GI Carpenter GF Teare K Steel K Berg K Murphy J Bjornson PV Jonsson JP Hirdes, Aging (Milan, Italy) 2001 13 4 316 330 11695501
79. Psychometric characteristics of the minimum data set I: Confirmatory factor analysis. R Casten MP Lawton PA Parmelee MH Kleban, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1998 46 6 726 735 9625189 (Pubitemid 28262349)
80. The validity of the minimum data set in measuring the cognitive impairment of persons admitted to nursing homes. AL Gruber-Baldini SI Zimmerman E Mortimore J Magaziner, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2000 48 12 1601 1606 11129749
81. Reliability estimates for the minimum data set for nursing home resident assessment and care screening (MDS). C Hawes JN Morris CD Phillips V Mor BE Fries S Nonemaker, The Gerontologist 1995 35 2 172 178 7750773
82. The resident assessment instrument-mental health (RAI-MH): Inter-rater reliability and convergent validity. JP Hirdes TF Smith T Rabinowitz K Yamauchi E Perez NC Telegdi P Prendergast JN Morris N Ikegami CD Phillips BE Fries, The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 2002 29 4 419 432 12404936 10.1007/BF02287348 (Pubitemid 38155317)
83. Validation of minimum data set for home care assessment instrument (MDS-HC) for hong kong chinese elders. C Kwan I Chi T Lam K Lam K Chou, Clinical Gerontologist 2000 21 4 35 48 10.1300/J018v21n04-04
84. Comprehensive clinical assessment in community setting: Applicability of the MDS-HC. JN Morris BE Fries K Steel N Ikegami R Bernabei GI Carpenter R Gilgen JP Hirdes E Topinkova, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1997 45 8 1017 1024 9256857
85. A commitment to change: Revision of HCFA's RAI. JN Morris S Nonemaker K Murphy C Hawes BE Fries V Mor C Phillips, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1997 45 8 1011 1016 9256856
86. Efforts to establish the reliability of the resident assessment instrument. A Sgadari JN Morris BE Fries G Ljunggren PV Jonsson JN DuPaquier M Schroll, Age and Ageing 1997 26 Suppl 2 27 30 (Pubitemid 28019059)
87. Residential care/assisted living staff may detect undiagnosed dementia using the minimum data set cognition scale. S Zimmerman PD Sloane CS Williams D Dobbs R Ellajosyula A Braaten M Rupnow DI Kaufer, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2007 55 9 1349 1355 17767676 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01289.x (Pubitemid 47329229)
88. Measuring change in activities of daily living in nursing home residents with moderate to severe cognitive impairment. GI Carpenter CL Hastie JN Morris BE Fries J Ankri, BMC Geriatrics 2006 6 7 16584565 10.1186/1471-2318-6-7 (Pubitemid 44123866)
89. Estimating the cognitive ability of nursing home residents from the minimum data set. J Cohen-Mansfield L Taylor D McConnell D Horton, Outcomes Management for Nursing Practice 1999 3 1 43 46 9934198
90. The MDS cognition scale: A valid instrument for identifying and staging nursing home residents with dementia using the minimum data set. SL Hartmaier PD Sloane HA Guess GG Koch, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1994 42 11 1173 1179 7963204
91. Psychometric characteristics of the minimum data set II: Validity. MP Lawton R Casten PA Parmelee K Van Haitsma J Corn MH Kleban, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1998 46 6 736 744 9625190
92. Validity and responsiveness of the minimum data set. M Snowden W McCormick J Russo D Srebnik K Comtois J Bowen L Teri EB Larson, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1999 47 8 1000 1004 10443863
93. Defining severe dementia with the minimum data set. JT van der Steen L Volicer DL Gerritsen RL Kruse MW Ribbe DR Mehr, International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 2006 21 11 1099 1106 16955417 10.1002/gps.1618 (Pubitemid 44762729)
94. DL Streiner GR Norman, Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use New York: Oxford University Press 3 2003
95. The functional autonomy measurement system (SMAF); description and calidation of an instrument for the measurement of handicaps. R Hebert R Carrier A Bilodeau, Age and Ageing 1988 17 293 302 10.1093/ageing/17.5.293
96. Assessment of older people: Self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. MP Lawton EM Brody, Gerontologist 1969 3 179 186
97. A review of evidence on the reliability and validity of Minimum Data Set data. JW Poss NM Jutan JP Hirdes BE Fires JN Morris GF Teare K Reidel, Healthcare Management Forum 2008 21 1 33 9 18814426
98. The reliability of the Functional Independence Measures: A quantitative review. KJ Ottenbacher Y Hsu CV Granger RC Fiedler, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1996 77 1226 1232 10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90184-7 (Pubitemid 26424833)
99. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. JA Husted RJ Cook VT Farewell DD Gladman, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2000 53 495 668 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00206-1 (Pubitemid 30254341)
100. FIM measurement properties and rasch model details. BD Wright JM Linacre RM Smith AW Heinemann CV Granger, Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 1997 29 4 267 272 9428061
101. Evaluating changes in health status: reliability and responsiveness of five geriatric health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. DE Beaton S Hogg-Johnson C Bombardier, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1997 50 1 79 93 9048693 10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00296-X (Pubitemid 27089210)