K Salter1, J W Jutai, R Teasell, N C Foley, J Bitensky. 1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, St. Joseph's Health Care, London N6C 5JI, Canada. Katherine.Salter@sjhc.london.on.ca
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the psychometric and administrative properties of outcome measures assigned to the ICF Body Functions category, and commonly used in stroke rehabilitation research. METHOD: Critical review and synthesis of measurement properties for five commonly reported instruments in the stroke rehabilitation literature. Each instrument was rated using the eight evaluation criteria proposed by the UK Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme. The instruments were also assessed for the rigour with which their reliability, validity and responsiveness were reported in the published literature. RESULTS: The reporting of specific measurement qualities for outcome instruments was relatively consistent across measures located within the same general ICF category. Far less information was available on the responsiveness of measures, compared with reliability and validity. The best available instruments were associated with the following body functions: cognitive impairment, depression and motor recovery. CONCLUSIONS: The reader is encouraged to examine carefully the nature and scope of outcome measurement used in reporting the strength of evidence for improved body functions in stroke rehabilitation since there is significant diversity. However there appears to be good consensus about what are the most important indicators of successful rehabilitation outcome in each domain of body function.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the psychometric and administrative properties of outcome measures assigned to the ICF Body Functions category, and commonly used in stroke rehabilitation research. METHOD: Critical review and synthesis of measurement properties for five commonly reported instruments in the stroke rehabilitation literature. Each instrument was rated using the eight evaluation criteria proposed by the UK Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme. The instruments were also assessed for the rigour with which their reliability, validity and responsiveness were reported in the published literature. RESULTS: The reporting of specific measurement qualities for outcome instruments was relatively consistent across measures located within the same general ICF category. Far less information was available on the responsiveness of measures, compared with reliability and validity. The best available instruments were associated with the following body functions: cognitive impairment, depression and motor recovery. CONCLUSIONS: The reader is encouraged to examine carefully the nature and scope of outcome measurement used in reporting the strength of evidence for improved body functions in stroke rehabilitation since there is significant diversity. However there appears to be good consensus about what are the most important indicators of successful rehabilitation outcome in each domain of body function.
Authors: Jennifer Wu; Lucy Dodakian; Jill See; Erin Burke Quinlan; Lisa Meng; Jeby Abraham; Ellen C Wong; Vu Le; Alison McKenzie; Steven C Cramer Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 3.919