Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 313

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 164 of the 164 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Participation

Salter, K, Jutai, JW, Teasell, R, Foley, NC, BItensky, J, Bayley, M·2005·Disability and Rehabilitation

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the psychometric and administrative properties of outcome measures in the ICF Participation category, which are used in stroke rehabilitation research and reported in the published literature. METHOD: Critical review and synthesis of measurement properties for six commonly reported instruments in the stroke rehabilitation literature. Each instrument was rated using the eight evaluation criteria proposed by the UK Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme. The instruments were also assessed for the rigour with which their reliability, validity and responsiveness were reported in the published literature. RESULTS: Validity has been well reported for at least half of the measures reviewed. However, methods for reporting specific measurement qualities of outcome instruments were inconsistent. Responsiveness of measures has not been well documented. Of the three ICF categories, Participation seems to be most problematic with respect to: (a) lack of consensus on the range of domains required for measurement in stroke; (b) much greater emphasis on health-related quality of life, relative to subjective quality of life in general; (c) the inclusion of a mixture of measurements from all three ICF categories. CONCLUSIONS: The reader is encouraged to examine carefully the nature and scope of outcome measurement used in reporting the strength of evidence for improved participation associated with stroke rehabilitation. There is no consensus regarding the most important indicators of successful involvement in a life situation and which ones best represent the societal perspective of functioning. In particular, quality of life outcomes lack adequate conceptual frameworks to guide the process of development and validation of measures.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0963828040008552

Cites

164 of 164 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

1 retracted

Show all 164 references

Metadata

Authors
Salter, K., Jutai, J., Teasell, R., Foley, N., BItensky, J., & Bayley, M.
Venue
Disability and Rehabilitation
Published
2005-05-06
Volume
27
Issue
9
Pages
507-528
ISSN
  • 0963-8288 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5165
OpenAlex
W2086992684
Cited by
313
References
164
FWCI
13.70
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: Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Participation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/0963828040008552
The paper
Salter, K., Jutai, J., Teasell, R., Foley, N., BItensky, J., & Bayley, M. (2005). Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Participation. Disability and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963828040008552

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.