Comparison of the Kurtkze Expanded Disability Status Scale and the Functional Independence Measure: Measures of multiple sclerosis-related disability

Disability and Rehabilitation

Volumn 35, Issue 22, 2013, Pages 1877-1884

  Rabadi, Meheroz H ^a,b   Vincent, Andrea S ^c  

^a VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

Author keywords

Disability; Functional Independence Measure; Kurtkze EDSS scale; Multiple sclerosis; Rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DISABILITY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; ONSET AGE; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; VETERAN;

ADULT; AGE OF ONSET; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; VETERANS;

EID: 84885363819     PISSN: 09638288     EISSN: 14645165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2013.766269     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Kurtzke JF. A new scale for evaluating disability in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1955;5:580-3.
2. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983;33:1444-52.
3. Sharrack B, Hughes RA, Soudain S, Dunn G. The psychometric properties of clinical rating scales used in multiple sclerosis. Brain 1999;122:141-59.
4. Amato MP, Fratiglioni L, Groppi C, et al. Interrater reliability in assessing functional systems and disability on the Kurtzke scale in multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 1988;45:746-8.
5. Noseworthy JH, Vandervoort MK, Wong CJ, Ebers GC. Interrater variability with the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and Functional Systems (FS) in a multiple sclerosis clinical trial. The Canadian Cooperation MS Study Group. Neurology 1990;40:971-5.
6. Hobart J, Freeman J, Thompson A. Kurtzke scales revisited: the application of psychometric methods to clinical intuition. Brain 2000;123:1027-40.
7. Willoughby EW, Paty DW. Scales for rating impairment in multiple sclerosis: a critique. Neurology 1988;38:1793-8.
8. Cohen RA, Kessler HR, Fischer M. The Extended Disability Status Scale (EDSS) as a predictor of impairments of functional activities of daily living in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci 1993;115:132-5.
9. Stineman MG, Shea JA, Jette A, et al. The Functional Independence Measure: tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996;77:1101-8.
10. Stineman MG, Maislin G. Validity of functional independence measure scores. Scand J Rehabil Med 2000;32:143-4.
11. Dodds TA, Martin DP, Stolov WC, Deyo RA. A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:531-6.
12. Granger CV. The emerging science of functional assessment: our tool for outcomes analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:235-40.
13. Goodkin DE, Hertsgaard D, Seminary J. Upper extremity function in multiple sclerosis: improving assessment sensitivity with box-and-block and nine-hole peg tests. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1988;69:850-4.
14. Lublin FD, Reingold SC. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: results of an international survey. National Multiple Sclerosis Society (USA) Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials of New Agents in Multiple Sclerosis. Neurology 1996;46:907-11.
15. Reding MJ, Potes E. Rehabilitation outcome following initial unilateral hemispheric stroke. Life table analysis approach. Stroke 1988;19:1354-8.
16. Reding MJ. A model stroke classification scheme and its use in outcome research. Stroke 1990;21:II35-7.
17. Han L, Law-Gibson D, Reding M. Key neurological impairments influence function-related group outcomes after stroke. Stroke 2002;33:1920-4.
18. Siegel S, Castellan NJ. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1988.
19. Liang MH. Evaluating measurement responsiveness. J Rheumatol 1995;22:1191-2.
20. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparison of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 1990;28:632-42.
21. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press; 1977.
22. Einarsson U, Gottberg K, Fredrikson S, et al. Activities of daily living and social activities in people with multiple sclerosis in Stockholm County. Clin Rehabil 2006;20:543-51.
23. Grasso MG, Pace L, Troisi E, et al. Prognostic factors in multiple sclerosis rehabilitation. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2009;45:47-51.
24. Sharrack B, Hughes RA, Soudain S, Dunn G. The psychometric properties of clinical rating scales used in multiple sclerosis. Brain 1999;122:141-59.
25. Solari A, Filippini G, Gasco P, et al. Physical rehabilitation has a positive effect on disability in multiple sclerosis patients. Neurology 1999;52:57-62.
26. Hobart J, Freeman J, Thompson A. Kurtzke scales revisited: the application of psychometric methods to clinical intuition. Brain 2000;123:1027-40.
27. Rudick R, Antel J, Confavreux C, et al. Recommendations from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society Clinical Outcomes Assessment Task Force. Ann Neurol 1997;42:379-82.
28. Cohen JA, Fischer JS, Bolibrush DM, et al. Intrarater and interrater reliability of the MS functional composite outcome measure. Neurology 2000;54:802-6.
29. Hobart J, Kalkers N, Barkhof F, et al. Outcome measures for multiple sclerosis clinical trials: relative measurement precision of the Expanded Disability Status Scale and Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite. Mult Scler 2004;10:41-6.