Evaluation of patient and proxy responses on the activity measure for postacute care

Stroke

Volumn 43, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 824-829

  Jette, Alan M ^a   Ni, Pengsheng ^a   Rasch, Elizabeth K ^b   Appelman, Jed ^c   Sandel, M Elizabeth ^c   Terdiman, Joseph ^d   Chan, Leighton ^b  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

^c KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d DIVISION OF RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

disability evaluation; rehabilitation; stroke assessment; stroke outcome

Indexed keywords

ACTIVITY MEASURE FOR POSTACUTE CARE; ARTICLE; COGNITION; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DISEASE SEVERITY; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW BIAS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT MOBILITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STROKE; STROKE PATIENT; TELECONSULTATION;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CASE MANAGEMENT; COGNITION; COGNITION DISORDERS; DATA COLLECTION; FAMILY; FEMALE; HUMANS; INPATIENTS; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOBILITY LIMITATION; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; OUTPATIENTS; PATIENTS; PHYSICIANS; PROXY; SEX FACTORS; STROKE; SURVIVORS;

EID: 84857652567     PISSN: 00392499     EISSN: 15244628     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.619643     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. de Haan RJ, Limburg M, Van der Meulen JH, Jacobs HM, Aaronson NK. Quality of life after stroke. Impact of stroke type and lesion location. Stroke. 1995;26:402-408.
2. Pedersen PM, Jorgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS. Aphasia in acute stroke: incidence, determinants, and recovery. Ann Neurol. 1995;38:659-666.
3. Dorman PJ, Waddell F, Slattery J, Dennis M, Sandercock P. Are proxy assessments of health status after stroke with the EuroQol questionnaire feasible, accurate, and unbiased? Stroke. 1997;28:1883-1887.
4. Sneeuw KC, Aaaronson NK, de Haan RJ, Limburg M. Assessing quality of life after stroke. The value and limitations of proxy ratings. Stroke. 1997;28:1541-1549.
5. Duncan PW, Bode RK, Min Lai S, Perera S, Glycine Antagonist in Neuroprotection American Investigators. Rasch analysis of a new strokespecific outcome scale: the Stroke Impact Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:950-963.
6. Barrett AM. Rose-colored answers: neuropsychological deficits and patient-reported outcomes after stroke. Behav Neurol. 2010;22:17-23.
7. Magaziner J, Zimmerman SI, Gruber-Baldini AL, Hebel JR, Fox KM. Proxy reporting in five areas of functional status. Comparison with self-reports and observations of performance. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;146:418-428.
8. Andresen EM, Vahle VJ, Lollar D. Proxy reliability: health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures for people with disability. Qual Life Res. 2001;10:609-619.
9. Tamim H, McCusker J, Dendukuri N. Proxy reporting of quality of life using the EQ-5D. Med Care. 2002;40:1186-1195.
10. Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH, Shuaib A, Carriere KC, Nasser AM. Agreement between patient and proxy assessments of health-related quality of life after stroke using the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Stroke. 2004;35:607-612.
11. Duncan PW, Lai SM, Tyler D, Perera S, Reker DM, Studenski S. Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke. 2002;33:2593-2599.
12. Williams LS, Bakas T, Brizendine E, Plue L, Tu W, Hendrie H, et. al. How valid are family proxy assessments of stroke patients' health-related quality of life? Stroke. 2006;37:2081-2085.
13. Hilari K, Owen S, Farrelly SJ. Proxy and self-report agreement on the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78:1072-1075.
14. Sneeuw KC, Sprangers MA, Aaronson NK. The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:1130-1143.
15. Segal ME, Gillard M, Schall R. Telephone and in-person proxy agreement between stroke patients and caregivers for the functional independence measure. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;75:208-212.
16. Tooth LR, McKenna KT, Smith M. Further evidence for the agreement between patients with stroke and their proxies on the Frenchay Activities Index. Clin Rehab. 2003;17:656-665.
17. Chen MH, Hsieh CL, Mao HF, Huang SL. Differences between patient and proxy reports in the assessment of disability after stroke. Clin Rehab. 2007;21:351-356.
18. Poulin V, Desrosiers J. Participation after stroke: comparing proxies' and patients' perceptions. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40:28-35.
19. Weinberger M, Samsa GP, Schmader K, Greenberg SM, Carr DB, Wildman DS. Comparing proxy and patients' perceptions of patients' functional status: results from an outpatient geriatric clinic. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992;40:585-588.
20. Neumann PJ, Araki SS, Gutterman EM. The use of proxy respondents in studies of older adults: lessons, challenges, and opportunities. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48:1646-1654.
21. Horowitz A, Goodman CR, Reinhardt JP. Congruence between disabled elders and their primary caregivers. Gerontologist. 2004;44:532-542.
22. Haley SM, Coster WJ, Andres PL, Ludlow LH, Ni PS, Bond TL, et al. Activity outcome measurement for post-acute care. Med Care. 2004;42(Suppl 1): I49-I61.
23. Andres PL, Haley SM, Ni PS. Is patient-reported function reliable for monitoring postacute outcomes? Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;82:614-621.
24. Haley SM, Ni P, Coster WJ, Black-Schaffer R, Siebens H, Tao W. Agreement in functional assessment: graphic approaches to displaying respondent effects. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;85:747-755.
25. Wainer H. Computer Adaptive Testing: A Primer. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlabaum Associates; 2000.
26. Jette A, Haley S, Tao W, Ni P, Moed R, Meyers D, et al. Prospective evaluation of the AM-PAC-CAT in outpatient rehabilitation settings. Phys Ther. 2007:385-398.
27. Andres PL, Black-Schaffer RM, Ni P, Haley SM. Computer adaptive testing: a strategy for monitoring stroke rehabilitation across settings. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2004;11:33-39.
28. Siebens H, Andres PL, Pengsheng N, Coster WJ, Haley SM. Measuring physical function in patients with complex medical and postsurgical conditions: a computer adaptive approach. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84:741-748.
29. Haley SM, Ni P, Jette AM, Tao W, Moed R, Meyers D, et al. Replenishing a computerized adaptive test of patient-reported daily activity functioning. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:461-471.
30. Casella G, Berger RL. Statistical inference. Duxbury Press; Pacific Grove, CA; 2002.
31. Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1981.
32. Monti K. Folded empirical distribution function curves mountain plots. Am Stat. 1995;49:342-345.
33. Carod-Artal FJ, Ferreira Coral L, Stieven Trizotto D, Menezes Moreira C. Self-and proxy-report agreement on the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke. 2009;40:3308-3314.
34. Tufte ER. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Chesire, CT: Graphics Press; 1983.
35. Luiz RR, Costa AJ, Kale PL, Werneck GL. Assessment of agreement of a quantitative variable: a new graphical approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:963-967.