Evaluating rehabilitation outcomes from the client's perspective by identifying the gap between current and preferred movement ability

Disability and Rehabilitation

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 452-461

  Allen, Diane D ^a   Cott, Cheryl A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Movement; Patient outcome assessment; Patient preference

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONVALESCENCE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; JOINT CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOTIVATION; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSIOTHERAPY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AMBULATORY CARE FACILITIES; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; GOALS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOVEMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICAL THERAPY MODALITIES; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 76449118352     PISSN: 09638288     EISSN: 14645165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/09638280903171493     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Cott CA. Client-centred rehabilitation: client perspectives. Disabil Rehabil 2004;26:1411-1422.
2. Law M, Baptiste S, Mills J. Client-centred practice: what does it mean and does it make a difference? Can J Occup Ther 1995;62:250-257.
3. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. British Medical Journal 1996;312:71-72.
4. Cott CA, Finch E, Gasner D, Yoshida K, Thomas SG, Verrier MCM. The movement continuum theory of physical therapy. Physiother Can 1995;47:87-95.
5. Mahoney FJ, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md Med J 1965;14:61-65.
6. Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Sherwin FS, Zielezny M, Tashman JS. A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. In: Fisher ZM, editor. Rehabilitation outcomes analysis and measurement. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company Inc; 1987. pp 137-147.
7. Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI. Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiother Can 1989;41:304.
8. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient, I: a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehab Med 1975;7:13-31.
9. Wolf SL, Catlin PA, Ellis M, Archer AL, Morgan B, Piacentino A. Assessing Wolf Motor Function Test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke. Stroke 2001;32:1635-1639.
10. Granger C, Cotter A, Hamilton B, Fielder R, Hens M. Functional assessment scales: a study of persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1990;71:870-875.
11. Kiresuk T, Sherman R. Goal attainment scaling: a general method of evaluating comprehensive mental programs. Commun Ment Health J 1968;4:443-453.
12. Stratford P, Gill C, Westaway M, Binkley J. Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure. Physiother Can 1995;47:258-263.
13. Clark MS, Caudrey DJ. Evaluation of rehabilitation services: the use of goal attainment scaling. Int Rehabil Med 1983; 5:41-45.
14. Malec JF, Smigielski JS, Depompolo RW. Goal attainment and outcome measurement in postacute brain injury rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1991;72:138-143.
15. Stolee P, Stadnyk K, Myers AM, Rockwood KJ. An individualized approach to outcome measurement in geriatric rehabilitation. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 1999;12:M641-M647.
16. Hurn J, Kneebone I, Cropley M. Goal setting as an outcome measure: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil 2006;20:756-772.
17. Joyce BM, Rockwood KJ, Mate-Kole CC. Use of goal attainment scaling in brain injury in a rehabilitation hospital. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1994;73:10-14.
18. Ottenbacher KJ, Cusick A. Goal attainment scaling as a method of clinical service evaluation. Am J Occup Ther 1990; 44:519-525.
19. Forbes DA. Goal attainment scaling. A responsive measure of client outcomes. J Gerontol Nurs 1998;24:34-40.
20. Mitchell T, Cusick A. Evaluation of a client-centred paediatric rehabilitation programme using goal attainment scaling. Aust Occup Ther J 1998;45:7-17.
21. Turnball J. Evaluating health care using goal attainment scaling. Nurs Stand 1998;12:35-38.
22. Cleland JA, Fritz JM, Whitman JM, Palmer JA. The reliability and construct validity of the neck disability index and patient specific functional scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Spine 2006;31:598-602.
23. Sterling M, Brentnall D. Patient specific functional scale. Aust J Physiother 2007;53:65.
24. Depledge J, McNair PJ, Keal-Smith C, Williams M. Management of symphysis pubis dysfunction during pregnancy using exercise and pelvic support belts.PhysTher2005;85:1290-1300.
25. Berghuis-Kelley D, Scherer S. Outcome measures in cardiopulmonary physical therapy: use of the patient specific functional scale. Cardiopulm Phys Ther J 2007;18:21-23.
26. Chatman AB, Hyams SP, Neel JM, Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Schomberg A, Stabler M. The patient-specific functional scale: measurement properties in patients with knee dysfunction. Phys Ther 1997;77:820-829.
27. Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating scale analysis. Chicago, IL: MESA Press; 1982.
28. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1991.
29. Allen DD. Validity and reliability of the Movement Ability Measure: a self-report instrument proposed for assessing movement across diagnoses and ability levels. Phys Ther 2007;87:899-916.
30. Wilson M. Constructing measures: an item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2005.
31. Allen DD. Proposing 6 dimensions within the construct of movement in the Movement Continuum Theory. Phys Ther 2007;87:888-898.
32. Allen DD. Responsiveness of the Movement Ability Measure: a self-report instrument proposed for assessing the effectiveness of physical therapy intervention. Phys Ther 2007;87: 917-924.
33. Allen DD. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Movement Ability Measure, a new instrument proposed for assessing physical therapist competence [Dissertation]. Berkeley, CA: Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley; 2005.
34. Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, Boers M, Simon L, Strand V, Brooks P, Tugwell P.Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 2001;28(2):406-412.
35. Straube D, Campbell SK. Rater discrimination using the visual analog scale of the physical therapist clinical performance instrument. J Phys Ther Educ 2003;17:33-38.
36. ACER ConQuest: Generalised Item Response Modelling Software [computer program]. Version 2.0. Hawthorn, Australia: ACER (Australian Council for Educational Research) Press; 2003.
37. Wiles R, Ashburn A, Payne S, Murphy C. Patients' expectations of recovery following stroke: a qualitative study. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:841-850.
38. Cott CA, Teare G, McGilton KS, Lineker S. Reliability and construct validity of the client-centred rehabilitation questionnaire. Disabil Rehabil 2006;28:1387-1397