View Item 

Show simple item record

Functional assessment in spinal cord injury: a comparison of the Modified Barthel Index and the 'adapted' Functional Independence Measure
dc.contributor.authorRoth, Ellioten_US
dc.contributor.authorDavidoff, Garyen_US
dc.contributor.authorHaughton, Johnen_US
dc.contributor.authorArdner, Maryen_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-04-13T18:37:46Z
dc.date.available2010-04-13T18:37:46Z
dc.date.issued1990en_US
dc.identifier.citationRoth, Elliot; Davidoff, Gary; Haughton, John; Ardner, Mary (1990). "Functional assessment in spinal cord injury: a comparison of the Modified Barthel Index and the 'adapted' Functional Independence Measure." Clinical Rehabilitation 4(4): 277-285. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/66557>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0269-2155en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/66557
dc.description.abstractThe Modified Barthel Index (MBI) and the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) have been used to provide objective measures of functional status and change of spinal cord injured (SCI) patients. To compare rating scores on the MBI and FIM, the functional abilities of 41 SCI patients were rated by one trained nurse-clinician using both scales at admission to initial rehabilitation (ADM), discharge from rehabilitation (DC) and at follow-up (FU) 12 months after rehabilitation. An 'adapted' FIM score was used, and total MBI and FIM scores were divided into self-care and mobility subscores. Comparisons were made between each MBI score and each FIM score at each point in time (ADM, DC, FU) using simple linear regression, which was also used to compare changes in the MBI and FIM scores from ADM to DC and from DC to FU. Excellent correlations ( p<0.0005) were found between MBI and FIM scores at all points in time and between changes in MBI scores and changes in FIM scores over each time interval.en_US
dc.format.extent3108 bytes
dc.format.extent496618 bytes
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.publisherSage Publicationsen_US
dc.titleFunctional assessment in spinal cord injury: a comparison of the Modified Barthel Index and the 'adapted' Functional Independence Measureen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelNursingen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPhysical Medicine and Rehabilitationen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan Medical Centre, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan Medical Centre, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan Medical Centre, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Northwestern University Medical School, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicagoen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/66557/2/10.1177_026921559000400405.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/026921559000400405en_US
dc.identifier.sourceClinical Rehabilitationen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJette AM State of the art in functional status assessment. In: Rothstein JM ed, Measurement in physical therapy, New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1985: 137-68.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHealth and Public Policy Committee, American College of Physicians. Comprehensive functional assessment for elderly patients. Ann Intern Med 1988; 109: 70-72.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFeinstein AR, Josephy BR, Wells CK Scientific and clinical problems in indexes of functional disability. Ann Intern Med 1986 ; 105: 413-20.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGranger CV, Hamilton BB, Keith RA, Zielezny M., Sherwin FS Advances in functional assessment for medical rehabilitation. Top Geriatr Rehabil 1986; 1(3): 59-74.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKane RA, Kane RL Assessing the elderly: a practical guide to measurement. Lexington: Lexington Books, 1981.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCanadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. The Periodic Health Examination. Can Med Assoc J 1979; 121: 1193-1254.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGranger CV, Gresham GE eds. Functional assessment in rehabilitation medicine. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1984.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRubenstein LZ, Josephson KR, Wieland GD, English PA, Sayre JA, Kane RL Effectiveness of a geriatric evaluation unit: a randomized clinical trial. N Engl J Med 1984; 311: 1664-70.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLiem PH, Chernoff R., Carter WJ Geriatric evaluation unit — A 3-year outcome evaluation. J Gerontol 1986; 41: 44-50.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAllen CM, Becker PM, Mc Vay LJ et al. A randomized, controlled clinical trial of a geriatric consultation team: compliance with recommendations. JAMA 1986; 255: 2617-21.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Institute on Aging Task Force. Senility reconsidered: treatment possibilities for mental impairment in the elderly. JAMA 1980; 244: 259-63.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMoskowitz E., Mc Cann CB Classification of disability in the chronically ill and aging. J Chron Dis 1957; 5: 342-46.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMahoney F., Barthel D. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Maryland State Med J 1965; 14: 61-65.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGranger CV, Albrecht GL, Hamilton BB Outcome of comprehensive medical rehabilitation: measurement by PULSES Profile and the Barthel Index. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1979; 60: 145-54.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchoening HA, Anderegg L., Bergstrom D., Fonda M., Steinke N., Ulrich P. Numerical scoring of self-care status of patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1965; 46: 689-97.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDonaldson SW, Wagner CC, Gresham GE A unified ADL evaluation form. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1973; 54: 175-79.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHarvey RF, Jellinek HM Functional performance assessment: a program approach. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1981; 62: 456-61.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKeith RA Functional assessment measures in medical rehabilitation: current status. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1984; 65: 74-78.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLaw M., Letts L. A critical review of scales of activities of daily living. Am J Occup Ther 1989; 43: 522-28.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBruett TL, Overs RP A critical review of 12 ADL scales. Phys Ther 1969; 49: 857-62.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoy CW, Togneri J., Hay E., Pentland B. An inter-rater reliability study of the Barthel Index. Int J Rehab Research 1988; 11: 67-70.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGranger CV, Dewis LS, Peters NC, Sherwood CC, Barrett JE Stroke rehabilitation: analysis of repeated Barthel Index measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1979; 60: 14-17.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJacelon CS The Barthel Index and other indices of functional ability. Rehabilitation Nursing 1986; 11: 9-11.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGresham GE, Phillips TF, Labi Mlc. ADL status in stroke: relative merits of three standard indexes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1980; 61: 355-58.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJongbloed L. Prediction of function after stroke: a critical review. Stroke 1986; 17: 765-76.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCollin C., Wade DT, Davies S., Horne V. The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud 1988; 10: 61-63.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWade DT, Langton-Hewer R. Functional abilities after stroke: measurement, natural history and prognosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1987; 50: 177-82.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWade DT, Collin C. The Barthel ADL Index: a standard measure of physical disability? Int Disabil Stud 1988; 10: 64-67.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYarkony GM, Roth EJ, Heinemann AW, Wu YC, Katz RT, Lovell L. Benefits of rehabilitation for traumatic spinal cord injury: multivariate analysis in 711 patients. Arch Neurol 1987 ; 44: 93-96.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYarkony GM, Roth EJ, Heinemann AW, Lovell LL Spinal cord injury rehabilitation outcome: the impact of age. J Clin Epidemiol 1988; 41: 173-77.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYarkony GM, Roth EJ, Heinemann AW, Lovell L., Wu YC Functional skills after spinal cord injury rehabilitation: three-year longitudinal follow-up. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1988; 69: 111-14.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWhiteneck GG A Functional Independence Measure trial in SCI model systems. Proc Am Spinal Injury Assoc 1988; 14: 48.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDavidoff G., Roth E., Haughton J., Ardner M. Cognitive dysfunction in spinal cord injury patients: sensitivity of the Functional Independence Measure subscales versus neuropsychological assessment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989, in press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDij kers MP, Development of item weights for the Functional Independence Measure: pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1988; 69: 755.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWagner MT, Zucchigna LJ Longitudinal comparison of the Barthel and FIM during the first six months of recovery from stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1988; 69: 755.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
10.1177_026921559000400405.pdf
Size:
484.9KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe its collections in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in them. We encourage you to Contact Us anonymously if you encounter harmful or problematic language in catalog records or finding aids. More information about our policies and practices is available at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.