Chih-Ying Li1, Sergio Romero2,3, Kit N Simpson4,5, Heather S Bonilha5, Annie N Simpson4,5, Ickpyo Hong6, Craig A Velozo7. 1. Division of Rehabilitation Sciences, School of Health Professions, University of Texas Medical Branch, Office 4.430, 301 University Boulevard, Galveston, TX, 77555-1137, USA. chili@utmb.edu. 2. Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32610-0164, USA. 3. Department of Veterans Affairs, Center of Innovation on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (CINDRR), 151-B NF/SG VA Medical Center, 1601 SW Archer Rd., Gainesville, FL, 32608, USA. 4. Department of Healthcare Leadership and Management, College of Health Professions, Medical University of South Carolina, Rm 410, 151-B Rutledge Ave, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. 5. Department of Health Sciences and Research, College of Health Professions, Medical University of South Carolina, 77 President St., MSC 700, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. 6. Division of Rehabilitation Sciences, School of Health Professions, University of Texas Medical Branch, Office 4.430, 301 University Boulevard, Galveston, TX, 77555-1137, USA. 7. Division of Occupational Therapy, College of Health Professions, Medical University of South Carolina, Rm 330, 151-B Rutledge Avenue, MSC 962, Charleston, SC, 29425-9620, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSES: To compare measurement accuracy of test forms with varied number of items (13, 8, and 4 items) generated from the self-care physical function item bank composed of Functional Independence Measure (FIM™) and the Minimum Data Set (MDS). METHODS: Retrospective data analysis of 2499 Veterans who completed both FIM and MDS within 6 days. We compared measurement accuracy between the converted FIM (FIMc) motor score generated from the MDS and the original FIM (FIMa) motor score (13 items) at: (a) individual-level using point differences, and (b) group-level using function-related group (FRG). RESULTS: The differences of mean FIMa and FIMc scores were between 0.05 and 1.07 points for all test forms. Over 81% of FIMc from MDS_13 were within 15 points of the FIMa. 81-90% of FRGs generated by the FIM short forms was identical to those generated by the FIMa for stroke, lower limb amputation, knee and hip replacement; and 59.9-90.5% by all MDS test forms. All MDS test forms had above 74% agreement with same or adjacent FMGs (ICC 0.65-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy is dependent on the comparison level (i.e., individual or group), length of the test and which FRG is used. Our results partially support using existing instruments-without decreasing the number of the items-to generate a continuum of care measurement.
PURPOSES: To compare measurement accuracy of test forms with varied number of items (13, 8, and 4 items) generated from the self-care physical function item bank composed of Functional Independence Measure (FIM™) and the Minimum Data Set (MDS). METHODS: Retrospective data analysis of 2499 Veterans who completed both FIM and MDS within 6 days. We compared measurement accuracy between the converted FIM (FIMc) motor score generated from the MDS and the original FIM (FIMa) motor score (13 items) at: (a) individual-level using point differences, and (b) group-level using function-related group (FRG). RESULTS: The differences of mean FIMa and FIMc scores were between 0.05 and 1.07 points for all test forms. Over 81% of FIMc from MDS_13 were within 15 points of the FIMa. 81-90% of FRGs generated by the FIM short forms was identical to those generated by the FIMa for stroke, lower limb amputation, knee and hip replacement; and 59.9-90.5% by all MDS test forms. All MDS test forms had above 74% agreement with same or adjacent FMGs (ICC 0.65-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy is dependent on the comparison level (i.e., individual or group), length of the test and which FRG is used. Our results partially support using existing instruments-without decreasing the number of the items-to generate a continuum of care measurement.
Entities:
Keywords:
Activities of daily living; Classification; Continuity of patient care; Outcome assessment (health care); Veterans
Authors: Christina M del Toro; Lauren P Bislick; Matthew Comer; Craig Velozo; Sergio Romero; Leslie J Gonzalez Rothi; Diane L Kendall Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2010-12-20 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: M G Stineman; C J Tassoni; J J Escarce; J E Goin; C V Granger; R C Fiedler; S V Williams Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Martijn A H Oude Voshaar; Peter M Ten Klooster; Erik Taal; Frederick Wolfe; Harald Vonkeman; Cees A W Glas; Mart A F J Van De Laar Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Chih-Ying Li; Allen Haas; Kevin T Pritchard; Amol Karmarkar; Yong-Fang Kuo; Kimberly Hreha; Kenneth J Ottenbacher Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2021-08-30 Impact factor: 4.669