OBJECTIVE: This study examined the equivalence reliability of two administration methods for the Functional Independence Measure for Children (WeeFIM). The two methods were direct observation of child performance and parental interview. METHOD:Thirty children between the ages of 19 months and 71 months with identified developmental disabilities were included in this study. The direct observation and interview methods were administered in random order to each subject within a 3-week period. The direct observation was completed in the educational setting, and the WeeFIM interview was obtained by either in-person interview or telephone interview with the parent. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for total WeeFIM ratings was .93, indicating consistency between the two administration methods. Analysis of the WeeFIM Motor (13 items) and Cognitive (5 items) domains yielded ICC values of .93 and .75, respectively, suggesting greater consistency for items measuring motor-related skills. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate good agreement for total ratings when the WeeFIM is administered by direct observation and by interview with a parent. The findings establish the clinical usefulness of information collected by clinical interview.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the equivalence reliability of two administration methods for the Functional Independence Measure for Children (WeeFIM). The two methods were direct observation of child performance and parental interview. METHOD: Thirty children between the ages of 19 months and 71 months with identified developmental disabilities were included in this study. The direct observation and interview methods were administered in random order to each subject within a 3-week period. The direct observation was completed in the educational setting, and the WeeFIM interview was obtained by either in-person interview or telephone interview with the parent. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for total WeeFIM ratings was .93, indicating consistency between the two administration methods. Analysis of the WeeFIM Motor (13 items) and Cognitive (5 items) domains yielded ICC values of .93 and .75, respectively, suggesting greater consistency for items measuring motor-related skills. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate good agreement for total ratings when the WeeFIM is administered by direct observation and by interview with a parent. The findings establish the clinical usefulness of information collected by clinical interview.