OBJECTIVE: The Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation (USER) is a measure of functional independence that covers physical functioning (mobility, self-care), cognitive functioning and additional domains of pain, fatigue and mood. USER is implemented in the Netherlands as a generic rehabilitation outcome measure. This article reports the development and psychometric characteristics of USER. DESIGN: (1) Inter-rater reliability study and (2) responsiveness study with measurements at admission and at discharge from clinical rehabilitation. SETTING: Three rehabilitation facilities in the Netherlands. PATIENTS: Rehabilitation inpatients (N = 319). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM) of USER scales were compared to those of the Barthel Index, Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and to relevant scales of the SF-36. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability of USER was satisfactory to good. Strong correlations were found between the physical and cognitive functioning scores of USER, the Barthel Index and FIM (0.84-0.94). Correlations between USER pain, fatigue and mood scores and SF-36 scores were also strong (0.58-0.84). Responsiveness of USER physical functioning (1.0-1.2) was very good and slightly better than responsiveness of the Barthel Index (0.9-1.1) and the FIM motor score (0.8-1.1). Responsiveness of the USER cognitive score was below standard (0.2-0.3), but better than responsiveness of the FIM cognitive scores (0.1-0.2). CONCLUSIONS: USER is a reliable, valid and responsive measure of functional independence that can be used as an alternative for the FIM. The pain, fatigue and mood scores were adapted after this study and need additional validation.
OBJECTIVE: The Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation (USER) is a measure of functional independence that covers physical functioning (mobility, self-care), cognitive functioning and additional domains of pain, fatigue and mood. USER is implemented in the Netherlands as a generic rehabilitation outcome measure. This article reports the development and psychometric characteristics of USER. DESIGN: (1) Inter-rater reliability study and (2) responsiveness study with measurements at admission and at discharge from clinical rehabilitation. SETTING: Three rehabilitation facilities in the Netherlands. PATIENTS: Rehabilitation inpatients (N = 319). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM) of USER scales were compared to those of the Barthel Index, Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and to relevant scales of the SF-36. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability of USER was satisfactory to good. Strong correlations were found between the physical and cognitive functioning scores of USER, the Barthel Index and FIM (0.84-0.94). Correlations between USER pain, fatigue and mood scores and SF-36 scores were also strong (0.58-0.84). Responsiveness of USER physical functioning (1.0-1.2) was very good and slightly better than responsiveness of the Barthel Index (0.9-1.1) and the FIM motor score (0.8-1.1). Responsiveness of the USER cognitive score was below standard (0.2-0.3), but better than responsiveness of the FIM cognitive scores (0.1-0.2). CONCLUSIONS: USER is a reliable, valid and responsive measure of functional independence that can be used as an alternative for the FIM. The pain, fatigue and mood scores were adapted after this study and need additional validation.
Authors: Justine A Aaronson; Coen A M van Bennekom; Winni F Hofman; Tijs van Bezeij; Joost G van den Aardweg; Erny Groet; Wytske A Kylstra; Ben Schmand Journal: Sleep Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Justine A Aaronson; Winni F Hofman; Coen A M van Bennekom; Tijs van Bezeij; Joost G van den Aardweg; Erny Groet; Wytske A Kylstra; Ben Schmand Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Menco J S Niemeyer; R D Lokerman; S Sadiqi; M van Heijl; R M Houwert; K J P van Wessem; M W M Post; C F van Koppenhagen Journal: Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil Date: 2021-01-20
Authors: Joyce A Kootker; Luciano Fasotti; Sascha Mc Rasquin; Caroline M van Heugten; Alexander Ch Geurts Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2012-07-07 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Vera-Christina Mertens; Mariëlle E J B Goossens; Jeanine A Verbunt; Albere J Köke; Rob J E M Smeets Journal: Trials Date: 2013-04-02 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Justine A Aaronson; Coen A M van Bennekom; Winni F Hofman; Tijs van Bezeij; Joost G van den Aardweg; Erny Groet; Wytske A Kylstra; Ben A Schmand Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Renate M van de Ven; Jaap M J Murre; Jessika I V Buitenweg; Dick J Veltman; Justine A Aaronson; Tanja C W Nijboer; Suzanne J C Kruiper-Doesborgh; Coen A M van Bennekom; K Richard Ridderinkhof; Ben Schmand Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ewout B Smit; Hylco Bouwstra; Johannes C van der Wouden; Lizette M Wattel; Cees M P M Hertogh Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 1.710
Authors: Ingrid H W M Sturkenboom; Maud J Graff; George F Borm; Eddy M M Adang; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden; Bastiaan R Bloem; Marten Munneke Journal: Trials Date: 2013-02-02 Impact factor: 2.279