The neurological impairment scale: Reliability and validity as a predictor of functional outcome in neurorehabilitation

Disability and Rehabilitation

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 23-31

  Turner Stokes, Lynne ^a,b   Thu, Aung ^b   Williams, Heather ^b   Casey, Rebecca ^b   Rose, Hilary ^b   Siegert, Richard J ^a,c  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b NORTHWICK PARK HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Measure; Neurological Impairment Scale; Outcome assessment; Psychometrics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONVALESCENCE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DISABILITY; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HOSPITAL PATIENT; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHYSIOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AGED; COHORT STUDIES; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; INPATIENTS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NERVOUS SYSTEM DISEASES; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PSYCHOMETRICS; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 84890477349     PISSN: 09638288     EISSN: 14645165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2013.775360     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2002. Report No.: ISBN 91 4 154542 9.
2. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Maryland State Med J 1965;14:61-5.
3. Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS. The Functional Independence Measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. Adv Clin Rehabil 1987;1:6-18.
4. Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Sherwin FS, et al. A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer JM, ed. Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurement. Baltimore: Brookes 1987:13-47.
5. Hamilton BB, Laughlin JA, Fiedler RC, Granger CV. Interrater reliability of the 7-level Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Scand J Rehabil Med 1994;26:115-19.
6. Hall KM, Hamilton BB, Gordon WA, Zasler ND. Characteristics and comparisons of functional assessment indices: disability rating scale, Functional Independence Measure, and Functional Assessment Measure. J Head Traum Rehabil 1993;8:60-74.
7. Hall KM, Mann N, High WMJ, et al. Functional measures after traumatic brain injury: ceiling effects of FIM, FIM+FAM, DRS, and CIQ. J Head Traum Rehabil 1996;11:27-39.
8. Turner-Stokes L, Nyein K, et al. The UK FIM+FAM: development and evaluation. Clin Rehabil 1999;13:277-87.
9. Kidd D, Howard R, Losseff N, Thompson A. The benefit of inpatient rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil 1995;9: 198-203.
10. Sanjak M, Bravver E, Bockenek WL, et al. Supported treadmill ambulation for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:1920-9.
11. Brott T, Adams Jr HP, Olinger CP, et al. Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale. Stroke 1989;20: 864-70.
12. Maynard Jr FM, Bracken MB, Creasey G, et al. International standards for neurological and functional classification of spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 1997;35:266-74.
13. Turner-Stokes L, Williams H, Sephton K, et al. Engaging the hearts and minds of clinicians in outcome measurement - the UK Rehabilitation Outcomes Collaborative approach. Disabil Rehabil 2012;34:1871-9.
14. Skinner A, Turner-Stokes L. The use of standardised outcome measures for rehabilitation in the UK. Clin Rehabil 2005;20: 609-15.
15. Turner-Stokes L. Outcome measures for in-patient neurorehabilitation settings - a commentary. Neuropsychol Rehabil 1999;9: 329-43.
16. WHO. International Classification of Impairment Disability and Handicaps (ICIDH). Geneva: World Health Organisation; 1980.
17. Siegert RJ, Turner-Stokes L, McCrone PM, et al. Evaluation of community rehabilitation service delivery in long-term neurological conditions: final report. London: National Institute of Heath Research, Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (Grant No: 0001833); 2012.
18. Pett MA, Lackey NR, Sullivan JJ. Making sense of factor analysis: the use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2003.
19. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74.
20. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 2nd edn. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
21. Cepeda NJ. Effect size calculator. 2008. Available from: http:// www.cognitiveflexibility.org/effectsize [last accessed 2012].
22. Cameron ID, Schaafsma FG, Wilson S, et al. Outcomes of rehabilitation in older people - functioning and cognition are the most important predictors: an inception cohort study. J Rehabil Med 2012;44:24-30.
23. Chumney D, Nollinger K, Shesko K, et al. Ability of functional independence measure to accurately predict functional outcome of stroke-specific population: systematic review. J Rehabil Res Dev 2010;47:17-29.
24. Barnes C, Conner D, Legault L, et al. Rehabilitation outcomes in cognitively impaired patients admitted to skilled nursing facilities from the community. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:1602-7.