Search

Background: Disability scales do not enable the transmission of concise, meaningful and daily function description for clinical purposes., Study Design: Cross-sectional statistical analysis of 328 patients' Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) III item scores (SIS)., Objective: To develop a concise and clinically interpretable data-based characterization of daily task accomplishment for patients with spinal cord lesions (SCLs)., Setting: Multi-center study at 13 spinal units in 6 countries., Methods: Patients were grouped into clusters characterized by smaller differences between the patients' SIS within the clusters than between their centers, using the k-medoides algorithm. The number of clusters (k) was chosen according to the percent of SIS variation they explained and the clinical distinction between them., Results: Analysis showed that k=8 SIS clusters offer a good description of the patient population. The eight functional clusters were designated as A-H, each cluster (grade) representing a combination of task accomplishments. Higher grades were usually (but not always) associated with patients implementing more difficult tasks. Throughout rehabilitation, the patients' functional grade improved and the distribution of patients with similar functional grades within the total SCIM III score deciles remained stable., Conclusions: A new classification based on SIS clusters enables a concise description of overall functioning and task accomplishment distribution in patients with SCL. A software tool is used to identify the patients' functional grade. Findings support the stability and utility of the grades for characterizing the patients' functional status.

ABILHAND is, in its original version, a 46-item, 4-level questionnaire. It measures the difficulty perceived by patients with rheumatoid arthritis as they do various daily manual tasks. ABILHAND was originally built through Rasch analysis. In a later study, it was simplified to a generic 23-item, three-level questionnaire, showing both cross-cultural (Belgium vs. Italy) and cross-impairment (rheumatoid arthritis vs. stroke) validity. Later research returned to the development of impairment-specific versions, with modified item sets and levels. Each version has its own Rasch-derived item difficulty calibrations, which are required to extract the patient's measure from the individual string of responses, through computerized algorithms. All of these hamper the practical application of the scale in rehabilitation units, where patients with diverse conditions may share similar impairments and treatment approaches. In this study through Rasch analysis the 'generic' scale was applied to 126 chronic patients with different upper limb impairments, and to 24 healthy controls. It was supported that the generic questionnaire remains valid across a variety of motor impairments. To further facilitate clinical application, a normative cut-off (>79 of 100) is suggested. Rasch-based item calibrations are provided together with a software routine designed to calculate, on individual patients, linear 0-100 measures and error estimates from the raw scores.

Objective: To analyse cross-culture validity of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) in patients with a spinal cord injury using a modern psychometric approach., Settings: A total of 19 rehabilitation facilities from four countries in Europe., Participants: A total of 647 patients at admission, median age 46 years, 69% male., Methods: Data from the FIM, collected on inpatient admission, was fitted to the Rasch model. A detailed analysis of scoring functions of the seven categories of the FIM items was undertaken before to testing fit to the model. Categories were rescored where necessary. Fit to the model was assessed initially within country, and then in the pooled data. Analysis of differential item functioning (DIF) was undertaken in the pooled data for each of the FIM motor and social cognitive scales, respectively. Final fit to the model was tested for breach of local independence by principle components analysis (PCA)., Results: The present scoring system for the FIM motor and cognitive scales, that is a seven category scale, was found to be invalid, necessitating extensive rescoring. Following this, DIF was found in a number of items within the motor scale, requiring a complex solution of splitting items by country to allow for the valid pooling of data. Five country-specific items could not be retained within this solution. The FIM cognitive scale fitted the Rasch model after rescoring, but there was a substantial ceiling effect., Conclusions: Data from the FIM motor scale for patients with spinal cord injury should not be pooled in its raw form, or compared from country to country. Only after fit to the Rasch model and necessary adjustments could such a comparison be made, but with a loss of clinical important items. The FIM cognitive scale works well following rescoring, and data may be pooled, but many patients were at the maximum score.

Introduction: In Europe it is common for outcome measures to be translated for use in other languages. This adaptation may be complicated by culturally specific approaches to certain tasks; for example, bathing. In this context the issue of cross-cultural validity becomes paramount., Objective: To facilitate the pooling of data in international studies, a project set out to evaluate the cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation measures used in rehabilitation from the perspective of the Rasch measurement model., Methods: Cross-cultural validity is assessed through an analysis of Differential Item Functioning (DIF) within the context of additive conjoint measurement expressed through the Rasch model. Data from patients undergoing rehabilitation for stroke was provided from 62 centers across Europe. Two commonly used outcome measures, the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) motor scale are used to illustrate the approach., Results: Pooled data from 3 countries for the MMSE were shown to fit the Rasch model with only 1 item displaying DIF by country. In contrast, many items from the FIM expressed DIF and misfit to the model. Consequently they were allowed to be unique across countries, so resolving the lack of fit to the model., Conclusions: Where data are to be pooled for international studies, analysis of DIF by culture is essential. Where DIF is observed, adjustments can be made to allow for cultural differences in outcome measurement.

Satisfaction with care, functional and cognitive status, life satisfaction, anxiety, and sociodemographic variables were correlated in 55 in-patients admitted to a rehabilitation unit after hip or knee surgery. The study aimed at investigating whether, as an index of care quality, patient satisfaction can be considered as a distinct domain or instead is subsidiary to other patient characteristics. Patient satisfaction with rehabilitation care was measured through a questionnaire, SAT-16. The SAT-16 scores were moderately correlated with a short form of the Life Satisfaction Index (LSI-11: rs = 0.41, p = 0.001), but did not correlate with either the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), the STAI form X (the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), age or educational level. According to the "discrepancy model", the fair degree of correlation between SAT-16 and LSI-11 could be explained by connecting both expressions of satisfaction with personal background expectations and their perceived degree of fulfilment. The results confirm, also for rehabilitation care, that patient satisfaction should be considered as a valuable specific outcome, independent of most of the patient characteristics investigated (functional and cognitive status, anxiety, age, and education).

Objective: To compare FIM instrument ratings between Italy and the United States., Design: This study utilized 169,835 United States and 4,536 Italian FIM instrument records for stroke with the left side of the body affected, stroke with the right side of the body affected, and orthopedic conditions., Results: Case-mix, patient age, and admission and discharge FIM instrument scores were similar. The delays between onset of disability and admission to rehabilitation and lengths of stay in rehabilitation were 2-4 times longer in Italy. In Italy, some 88-95% of the subjects were discharged to the community vs. 74-88% in the United States. Hierarchies of FIM instrument ratings across the motor and cognitive items were similar, but there were interesting differences. The hierarchical patterns showed that dressing, bathing, perineal hygiene, and tub or shower transfer were relatively more difficult in Italy compared with the Unites States, whereas walking was easier in Italy compared to the United States., Conclusion: The Italian health care payment system offers less incentive for early discharges from acute care and rehabilitation. In Italy, nursing homes are less accessible, whereas family support is more available. Apparently less intensive treatment is applied in Italy, where a minimum time per day for rehabilitation services is not mandatory for payment. Occupational therapy is not used in Italy and the focus is more on physical therapy.

A new item response scale is presented, which measures the severity of self-reported balance deficits. The scale, DHIsf, is a short form of the Dizziness Handicap Inventory. The scale was constructed and validated by Rasch analysis. Rasch analysis was applied to rescore or remove any items misfitting, redundant, or off-target, until an optimal instrument was obtained. The 25-item, 3-level Dizziness Handicap Inventory was, thus, reduced to the 13-item, 2-level DHIsf. The retained items explore the domains of eye/head movements, full body activities, and mood alterations. Data were collected from 55 outpatients (63 +/- 13 yr; 43 females) attending otoneurological rehabilitation referral at a general hospital because of complaints of dizziness or imbalance. They were fully independent in ambulation and showed no evidence of major neurological or orthopedic diseases. Objective tests included brain computed tomography, sovraaorctic Doppler sonography, craniocorpography, static posturography, and nystagmography. The findings were categorized as pathologic, borderline, or normal. At least one examination was borderline or abnormal in 42 patients. The DHIsf was well targeted on this sample, with a mean score of 5.7/13 (standard deviation, 2.8; median, 5; range, 1-13). The Rasch statistics showed that the 13 items evenly fitted a hierarchy of difficulty within a homogeneous construct. A moderate but significant variance explanation of DHIsf measures was provided by a two-way analysis of variance model, with craniocorpography and nystagmography as independent categorical variables (r2 = 0.15; P = 0.018). When the clinical tests were individually taken into account, their outcome (dichotomized as abnormal v borderline or normal) could not be predicted by either of the DHIsf measures or raw scores (logistic regression). The DHIsf compares favorably with the original Dizziness Handicap Inventory, shows some consistency with the instrumental findings, and provides original information on the severity of imbalance syndromes, as it is seen from the patient's perspective.

The Functional Assessment Measure (FAM) has been proposed as a measure of disability in post-acute Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) outpatients. It is comprised of the 18 items of The Functional Independence Measure (FIMSM), scored in terms of dependence, and of 12 newly designed items, scored in terms of dependence (7 items) or performance (5 items). The FIMSM covers the domains of self-care, sphincter management, mobility, locomotion, communication and social cognition. The 12 new items explore the domains of community integration, emotional status, orientation, attention, reading/writing skills, swallowing and speech intelligibility. By addressing a set of problems quite specific for TBI outpatients the FAM was intended to raise the ceiling of the FIMSM and to allow a more precise estimate of their disability. These claims, however, were never supported in previous studies. We administered the FAM to 60 TBI outpatient, 2-88 months (median 16) from trauma. Rasch analysis (rating scale model) was adopted to test the psychometric properties of the scale. The FAM was reliable (Rasch item and person reliability 0.91 and 0.93, respectively). Two of the 12 FAM-specific items were severely misfitting with the general construct, and were deleted. Within the 28-item refined FAM scale, 4 new items and 2 FIMSM items still retained signs of misfit. The FAM was on average too easy. The most difficult item (a new one, Employability) did not attain the average ability of the subjects. Also, it was only slightly more difficult than than the most difficult FIMSM item (Memory). The FAM does not seem to improve the FIMSM as a far as TBI outpatients are to be assessed.

Advanced age in itself does not predict a poor functional outcome or a longer length of stay in rehabilitation units. Seven hundred and sixty-four adult cases were analysed, from 14 post-acute rehabilitation facilities throughout Italy. Data came from the national database run by the agency distributing the Italian version of an internationally validated scale of disability, the FIM [symbol: see text] sm (Functional Independence Measure). The FIM is an 18-item scale rating independence in the domains of selfcare, sphincter control, mobility, locomotion, communication and social cognition. The total FIM score may range from 18 to 126 (higher score = greater independence). Patients were classified with respect to the cut-off age of 75 years (76+ and 75-, mean age 82 and 57 years, n = 203 and 561, 27% and 73% of the cases, respectively). The median interval between onset of disability and admission to the facility (onset-to-admission delay, OAD) was 36 and 45 days in the 76+ and the 75- group, respectively (p < 0.001). Mean admission FIM score was 70 (+/- 28) in the 76+ and 71 (+/- 27) in the 75- group. Discharge FIM scores were 84 +/- 29 and 93 +/- 26, respectively (p < 0.001). Median length of stay (LOS) was 34 days in the 76+ and 41 days in the 75- group, respectively (p < 0.005). The 76+ and 75- groups were discharged home in 86% and 90% of the cases, respectively (p = 0.053). The results suggest that inpatient rehabilitation is substantially effective and efficient for older as well as for younger patients.