The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The functional independence measure: Tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: The analysis presented here evaluated the psychometric properties of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) as a summated rating scale within context of the 20 impairment categories of the FIM-Function Related Group (FIM-FRG) system. DESIGN: This study involved a cross-sectional analysis of patient records, utilizing factor analysis and techniques of multitrait scaling to verify the summative properties of the motor and cognitive dimensions of the FIM and to study the statistical properties of admission FIM scores. PATIENTS: Included were a total of 93.829 patients discharged from 252 freestanding rehabilitation hospitals and units during calendar year 1992. Cases were excluded that had missing or out-of-range values or atypical lengths of stay. These criteria were developed previously in conjunction with an expert clinical panel and confirmed through statistical analyses. RESULTS: Factor analyses supported the motor and cognitive dimensions across all 20 impairment categories. The resulting subscales exceeded minimum criteria for item internal consistency in 96.9% of tests and item discriminant validity in 100% of tests. Reliability coefficients for each impairment category for both subscales ranged from .86 to .97. There were no major ceiling effects, but patients in certain impairment categories were unable to climb stairs at admission. CONCLUSION: The psychometric properties of the summated FIM compare favorably to most standardized health measures used in medical practice. Findings provide support for the motor and cognitive subscales as used in the FIM-FRGs. As a unidimensional scale, the FIM quantifies care burden. Split into the motor and cognitive (as used in the FIM-FRGs) it distinguishes physical disabilities from those arising from communication or cognitive difficulties.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
(1992) · PubMed · Cited by 33,716
The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection
Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 · Cited by 30,033
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
(1932) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 9,568
The Sickness Impact Profile: Development and Final Revision of a Health Status Measure
Bergner, M., Bobbitt, R. A., Carter, W. B., & Gilson, B. S. (1981) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-198108000-00001 · Cited by 4,619
McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., Rachel Lu, J. F., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1994) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199401000-00004 · Cited by 4,458
The MOS Short-form General Health Survey: Reliability and Validity in a Patient Population
Stewart, A. L., Hays, R. D., & Ware, J. E. (1988) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-198807000-00007 · Cited by 3,339
Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982) · ACEReSearch Repository (Australian Council for Educational Research) · Cited by 1,930
The structure and stability of the functional independence measure
Linacre, J. M., Heinemann, A. W., Wright, B. D., Granger, C. V., & Hamilton, B. B. (1994) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/0003-9993(94)90384-0 · Cited by 1,274
Self-citation
Cited by
Recommendations for the Use of Common Outcome Measures in Traumatic Brain Injury Research
Wilde, E. A., Whiteneck, G. G., Bogner, J., Bushnik, T., Cifu, D. X., Dikmen, S., French, L., Giacino, J. T., Hart, T., Malec, J. F., et al. (2010) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2010.06.033 · Cited by 461
The OPALS Major Trauma Study: impact of advanced life-support on survival and morbidity
Stiell, I. G., Nesbitt, L. P., Pickett, W., Munkley, D., Spaite, D. W., Banek, J., Field, B., Luinstra-Toohey, L., Maloney, J., Dreyer, J., et al. (2008) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.071154 · Cited by 266
Accelerated care versus standard care among patients with hip fracture: the HIP ATTACK pilot trial
The Hip Fracture Accelerated Surgical Treatment and Care Track (HIP ATTACK) Investigators (2014) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.130901 · Cited by 125
Widerström-Noga, E. G., Cruz-Almeida, Y., Martinez-Arizala, A., & Turk, D. C. (2006) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2005.12.036 · Cited by 68
Robinson-Whelen, S., Taylor, H. B., Feltz, M., & Whelen, M. (2016) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2016.04.008 · Cited by 59
Metadata
- Authors
- Stineman, M. G., Shea, J. A., Jette, A., Tassoni, C. J., Ottenbacher, K. J., Fiedler, R., & Granger, C. V.
- Venue
- Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1996-11
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1101-1108
- ISSN
- 0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2042223617
- Cited by
- 503
- References
- 33
- FWCI
- 34.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The functional independence measure: Tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0003-9993(96)90130-6
- The paper
- Stineman, M. G., Shea, J. A., Jette, A., Tassoni, C. J., Ottenbacher, K. J., Fiedler, R., & Granger, C. V. (1996). The functional independence measure: Tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-9993(96)90130-6
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
