Examining the function in sitting test for validity, responsiveness, and minimal clinically important difference in inpatient rehabilitation

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 95, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 2304-2311

  Gorman, Sharon L ^a   Harro, Cathy C ^b   Platko, Christina ^c   Greenwald, Cara ^d  

^a SAMUEL MERRITT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c MARY FREE BED REHABILITATION HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d ALTA BATES SUMMIT MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Outcome assessment (health care); Postural balance; Psychometrics; Rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; BALANCE IMPAIRMENT; BERG BALANCE SCALE; BRACE; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; COGNITIVE DEFECT; COMORBIDITY; CONCURRENT VALIDITY; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONTROLLED STUDY; FUNCTION IN SITTING TEST; FUNCTION TEST; GLASGOW COMA SCALE; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HUMAN; INPATIENT REHABILITATION; LENGTH OF STAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL HISTORY; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; ORTHOTICS; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; REHABILITATION; SITTING; STATISTICAL MODEL; TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY; VERY ELDERLY; ADOLESCENT; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; BODY EQUILIBRIUM; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSATION DISORDERS; VALIDATION STUDY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AREA UNDER CURVE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSTURAL BALANCE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; ROC CURVE; SENSATION DISORDERS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84922480703     PISSN: 00039993     EISSN: 1532821X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.07.415     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (56)

1. Black K, Zafonte R, Millis S, et al. Sitting balance following brain injury: Does it predict outcome? Brain Inj 2000; 14: 141-52.
2. Feigin L, Sharon B, Czaczkes B, Rosin A. Sitting equilibrium 2 weeks after a stroke can predict the walking ability after 6 months. Gerontology 1996; 42: 348-53.
3. Agarwal V, McRae PM, Bhardwaj A, Teasell RW. A model to aid in the prediction of discharge location for stroke rehabilitation patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84: 1703-9.
4. Wade DT, Skilbeck CE, Hewer RL, Wood VA. Therapy after stroke: Amounts, determinants and effects. Int Rehabil Med 1984; 6: 105-10.
5. Feld J, Rabadi M, Blau A, Jordon B. Berg Balance Scale and outcome measures in acquired brain injury. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2001; 15: 239-44.
6. Katz-Leurer M, Fisher I, Neeb M, Schwartz I, Carmeli E. Reliability and validity of the modified functional reach test at the sub-Acute stage post-stroke. Disabil Rehabil 2009; 31: 243-8.
7. Gorman SL, Radtka S, Melnick ME, Abrams GM, Byl NN. Development and validation of the Function In Sitting Test in adults with acute stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther 2010; 34: 150-60.
8. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott MH. Normal postural control. Motor control: Theory and practical applications. 3rd ed. New York: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p 163-91.
9. Amusat N. Assessment of sitting balance of patients with stroke undergoing inpatient rehabilitation. Physiother Theory Pract 2009; 25: 138-44.
10. Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI. The Balance Scale: Reliability assessment with elderly residents and patients with an acute stroke. Scand J Rehabil Med 1995; 27: 27-36.
11. Carr JH, Shepard RB, Nordholm L, Lynne D. Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Phys Ther 1985; 65: 175-80.
12. Verheyden G, Nieuwboer A, Merin J, Preger R, Kiekens C, DeWeerdt W. The Trunk Impairment Scale: A new tool to measure motor impairment of the trunk after stroke. Clin Rehabil 2004; 18: 326-34.
13. Medley A, Thompson M. Development, reliability, and validity of the Sitting Balance Scale. Physiother Theory Pract 2011; 27: 471-81.
14. Lynch SM, Leahy P, Barker SP. Reliability of measurements obtained with a modified functional reach test in subjects with spinal cord injury. Phys Ther 1998; 78: 128-34.
15. Newton RA. Validity of the Multi-Directional Reach Test: A practical measure for limits of stability in older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001; 56: M248-52.
16. Collin C, Wade D. Assessing motor impairment after stroke: A pilot reliability study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1990; 53: 576-9.
17. Duarte E, Marco E, Muniesa J, et al. Trunk Control Test as a functional predictor in stroke patients. J Rehabil Med 2002; 34: 267-72.
18. Guccione AA, Scalzitti DA. Examination of functional status and activity level. In: O'Sullivan S, Schmitz TJ, Fulk GD, editors. Physical rehabilitation. 6th ed. Philadelphia: FA Davis; 2014. p 373-400.
19. Gorman SL, Rivera M, McCarthy L. Reliability of the Function In Sitting Test (FIST). Rehabil Res Pract 2014; 2014: 593280.
20. Mustille R, Petersen H, Abele J, et al. A pilot study of the FIST as a functional outcomes measure in a neurological acute care population. J Acute Care Phys Ther 2013; 4: 129-30.
21. Gorman S. Function In Sitting Test (FIST) web-based training. Available at: Http://www.samuelmerritt.edu/fist. Accessed May 7, 2012.
22. Steiner WA, Ryser L, Huber E, Uebelhart D, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G. Use of the ICF model as a clinical problem-solving tool in physical therapy and rehabilitation medicine. Phys Ther 2002; 82: 1098-107.
23. Potter K, Fulk G, Salem Y, Sullivan J. Outcome measures in neurological physical therapy practice: Part I. Making sound decisions. J Neurol Phys Ther 2011; 35: 57-64.
24. Sullivan J, Andrews A, Lanzino D, Peron A, Potter K. Outcome measures in neurological physical therapy practice: Part II. A patientcentered process. J Neurol Phys Ther 2011; 35: 65-74.
25. Fulk G, Field-Fote E. Measures of evidence in evidence-based practice. J Neurol Phys Ther 2011; 35: 55-6.
26. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CSM). Inpatient rehabilitation facility prospective payment system. Memo on inpatient rehabilitation facility PPS and the 75% rule. Available at: Http://www.cms.hhs.gov/InpatientRehabFacPPS/Downloads/IRF-PPS-75-percent-rule-060807.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2011.
27. MedPac. Chapter 9. Inpatient rehabilitation facility services: Assessing payment adequacy and updating payments. Available at: Http://www.medpac.gov/chapters/Mar12-Ch09.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2012.
28. Tinetti ME. Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1986; 34: 119-26.
29. Verheyden G, Nieuwboer A, De Weerdt W. Clinical tools to measure trunk performance after stroke: A systematic review of the literature. Clin Rehabil 2007; 21: 387-94.
30. Carter RE, Lubinsky J, Domholdt E. Methodological research. Rehabilitation research: Principles and applications. 4th ed. St. Louis: Saunders; 2011. p 245-53.
31. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Statistical measures of validity. Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2009.
32. Time and Date AS. Date duration calculator: Days between two dates. Available at: Http://www.timeanddate.com/date/duration.html. Accessed July 9, 2012.
33. Guide for the Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation (including the FIM Instrument), version 5.1. Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo; 1997.
34. Tyson SF, DeSouza LH. Reliability and validity of functional balance tests post stroke. Clin Rehabil 2004; 18: 916-23.
35. Blum L, Korner-Bitensky N. Usefulness of the Berg Balance Scale in stroke rehabilitation: A systematic review. Phys Ther 2008; 88: 559-66.
36. Beaton D, Boers M, Wells G. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): A literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2002; 14: 109-14.
37. Juniper E, Guyatt G, Willan A, Griffith L. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 81-7.
38. Doyle C, Crump M, Pintilie M, Oza AM. Does palliative chemotherapy palliate? Evaluation of expectations, outcomes, and costs in women receiving chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 1266-74.
39. Kamper S, Maher C, Mackay G. Global Rating of Change Scales: A review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther 2009; 17: 163-70.
40. Jewell DV. Unraveling statistical mysteries. In: Jewell DV, editor. Guide to evidence-based physical therapist practice. 2nd ed. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett; 2011. p. 181-219.
41. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 171-8.
42. Kovacs F, Abraira V, Royuela A, et al. Minimum detectable and minimal clinically important changes for pain in patients with nonspecific neck pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008; 9: 43.
43. Terwee C, Bot S, deBoer M, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 34-42.
44. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet 1974; 2: 81-4.
45. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2008.
46. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 459-68.
47. Beninato M, Portney LG. Applying concepts of responsiveness to patient management in neurologic physical therapy. J Neurol Phys Ther 2011; 35: 75-81.
48. Jewell DV. Appraising evidence about diagnostic tests and clinical measures. Guide to evidence-based physical therapist practice. 2nd ed. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett; 2011. p 223-54.
49. Rehabilitation measures database. Statistics review. Available at: Http://www.rehabmeasures.org/rehabweb/rhstats.aspx. Accessed August 6, 2013.
50. Campo M, Shiyko M, Lichtman S. Sensitivity and specificity: A review of related statistics and controversies in the context of physical therapist education. J Phys Ther Educ 2010; 24: 69-78.
51. Stevenson T. Detecting change in patients with stroke using the Berg Balance Scale. Aust J Physiother 2001; 47: 29-38.
52. Mao HF, Hsueh IP, Tang PF, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. Analysis and comparison of the psychometric properties of three balance measures for stroke patients. Stroke 2002; 33: 1022-7.
53. Wood-Dauphinee S, Berg K, Bravo G, Williams JI. The Balance Scale: Responsiveness to clinically meaningful changes. Can J Rehabil 1997; 10: 35-50.
54. Chou C, Chien C, Hsueh I, Sheu C, Wang C, Hsieh C. Developing a short form of the Berg Balance Scale for people with stroke. Phys Ther 2006; 86: 195-204.
55. Schmitt J, Abbott J. Patient global ratings of change did not adequately reflect change over time: A clinical cohort study. Phys Ther 2014; 94: 534-42.
56. Cook C. Clinimetrics corner: The minimal clinically important change score (MCID): A necessary pretense. J ManManip Ther 2008; 16: E82-3.