The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Functional Status of Patients: How Can It Be Measured in Physiciansʼ Offices?
Abstract
Physicians wishing to maintain the functional capacity of their patients often need, but usually do not have, practical measures of function. The Dartmouth COOP, a primary care research network, developed nine pictorial Charts to efficiently measure patient function in busy office practice. Each Chart has a five-point scale, is illustrated, and can be self-administered or administered by office staff. The Charts are used to measure the patients' overall functional health just as Snellen Charts are used to measure vision. Studies to assess the Charts' reliability, validity, acceptability and clinical utility were conducted on over 2,000 patients in four diverse clinical settings. Results show that the Charts are both reliable and valid. One-hour test-retest intraclass correlations for elderly patients ranged from 0.78 to 0.98 and from 0.73 to 0.98 for low income patients. The average Pearson product-moment correlation between Charts and previously validated measures of function was 0.61 and the Charts were as capable of detecting the association between disease and functioning as were longer, standard measures. Most clinicians and patients report that the Charts are easy to use and provide a valuable tool to measure overall function in busy office practice. For the 25% of patients in which the Charts uncovered new information, changes in clinical management were initiated for 40% of them. We conclude that the COOP Charts are practical, reliable, valid, sensitive to the effects of disease and useful for quickly measuring patient function.
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
Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?
McHorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/bf01593882 · Cited by 2,206
Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials.
Fitzpatrick, Davey, Buxton, & Jones (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2140 · Cited by 1,715
Development and cross-cultural translations of a 31-item quality of life in epilepsy inventory
Cramer, J. A., Perrine, K., Devinsky, O., Bryant‐Comstock, L., Meador, K., & Hermann, B. (1998) · Epilepsia · doi:10.1111/j.1528-1157.1998.tb01278.x · Cited by 782
Development of the Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory
Devinsky, O., Vickrey, B. G., Cramer, J., Perrine, K., Hermann, B., Meador, K., & Hays, R. D. (1995) · Epilepsia · doi:10.1111/j.1528-1157.1995.tb00467.x · Cited by 634
Self-citationPsychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures
Hays, R. D., Anderson, R., & Revicki, D. (1993) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/bf00422218 · Cited by 513
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Nelson, E. C., Landgraf, J. M., Hays, R. D., Wasson, J. H., & Kirk, J. W.
- Venue
- Medical Care
- Published
- 1990-12
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1111-1126
- ISSN
- 0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W46957710
- Cited by
- 302
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 36.62
- 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: The Functional Status of Patients: How Can It Be Measured in Physiciansʼ Offices? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00005650-199012000-00001
- The paper
- Nelson, E. C., Landgraf, J. M., Hays, R. D., Wasson, J. H., & Kirk, J. W. (1990). The Functional Status of Patients: How Can It Be Measured in Physiciansʼ Offices? Medical Care. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199012000-00001
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.