The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Parallel reliability of the Functional Independence Measure and the Barthel ADL index
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the concordance between the assessments of ADL according to the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and the Barthel ADL index (BI) by means of a rank-invariant statistical method. METHOD: The construct validity, also called parallel reliability, of FIM and BI was assessed on the item level. Two different approaches to condensing the FIM assessments into 2-4 scale steps on the item level in order to calibrate the two ADL instruments were compared. One was determined by the theoretical operational definitions and the other defined by the empirical definitions. The 204 assessments of elderly persons were made three months after stroke by means of interviews. RESULTS: The parallel reliability of the FIM and the BI on the item level was strong, both according to the theoretical cut-off levels defined by the operational definitions and the empirical cut-off levels defined by the marginal distributions. CONCLUSIONS: The concordance between FIM and BI was high. There was a slight difference in favour of the operational definitions. The clinical key elements are to have a critical attitude towards ADL instruments; how they are constructed and operationalized. These are important elements in the quality assurance in the everyday work.
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
Cited by
Analysis and Comparison of the Psychometric Properties of Three Balance Measures for Stroke Patients
Mao, H.-F., Hsueh, I.-P., Tang, P.-F., Sheu, C.-F., & Hsieh, C.-L. (2002) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000012516.63191.c5 · Cited by 485
Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Participation
Salter, K., Jutai, J., Teasell, R., Foley, N., BItensky, J., & Bayley, M. (2005) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/0963828040008552 · Cited by 313
GUIDELINES TO STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF DATA FROM RATING SCALES AND QUESTIONNAIRES
Svensson, E. (2001) · Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.1080/165019701300006542 · Cited by 306
Self-citationPatient-reported physical activity questionnaires: a systematic review of content and format
Williams, K., Frei, A., Vetsch, A., Dobbels, F., Puhan, M. A., & Rüdell, K. (2012) · Health and Quality of Life Outcomes · doi:10.1186/1477-7525-10-28 · Cited by 52
Effect of acceptance and commitment therapy on rehabilitation patients with spinal cord injury
Huang, G., Lin, B. L., Hu, J. H., Qiu, F. H., Zhang, W. Y., Zhang, Z. L., Fan, H., Lu, M., & Li, J. B. (2021) · Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2021.100778 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Gosman-Hedström, G., & Svensson, E.
- Venue
- Disability and Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2000-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 702-715
- ISSN
- 0963-8288 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5165
- OpenAlex
- W2158705020
- Cited by
- 161
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Parallel reliability of the Functional Independence Measure and the Barthel ADL index. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09638280050191972
- The paper
- Gosman-Hedström, G., & Svensson, E. (2000). Parallel reliability of the Functional Independence Measure and the Barthel ADL index. Disability and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280050191972
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.