Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 255

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Activity Outcome Measurement for Postacute Care

Haley, Stephen M., Coster, Wendy J., Andres, Patricia L., Ludlow, Larry H., Ni, Pengsheg, Bond, Tamara L. Y., Sinclair, Samuel J., Jette, Alan M.·2004·Medical Care

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of a broad range of postacute care services have been hindered by the lack of conceptually sound and comprehensive measures of outcomes. It is critical to determine a common underlying structure before employing current methods of item equating across outcome instruments for future item banking and computer-adaptive testing applications. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the factor structure, reliability, and scale properties of items underlying the Activity domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) for use in postacute care outcome measurement. METHODS: We developed a 41-item Activity Measure for Postacute Care (AM-PAC) that assessed an individual's execution of discrete daily tasks in his or her own environment across major content domains as defined by the ICF. We evaluated the reliability and discriminant validity of the prototype AM-PAC in 477 individuals in active rehabilitation programs across 4 rehabilitation settings using factor analyses, tests of item scaling, internal consistency reliability analyses, Rasch item response theory modeling, residual component analysis, and modified parallel analysis. RESULTS: Results from an initial exploratory factor analysis produced 3 distinct, interpretable factors that accounted for 72% of the variance: Applied Cognition (44%), Personal Care & Instrumental Activities (19%), and Physical & Movement Activities (9%); these 3 activity factors were verified by a confirmatory factor analysis. Scaling assumptions were met for each factor in the total sample and across diagnostic groups. Internal consistency reliability was high for the total sample (Cronbach alpha = 0.92 to 0.94), and for specific diagnostic groups (Cronbach alpha = 0.90 to 0.95). Rasch scaling, residual factor, differential item functioning, and modified parallel analyses supported the unidimensionality and goodness of fit of each unique activity domain. CONCLUSIONS: This 3-factor model of the AM-PAC can form the conceptual basis for common-item equating and computer-adaptive applications, leading to a comprehensive system of outcome instruments for postacute care settings.

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 · 10.1097/01.mlr.0000103520.43902.6c

Cites

2 of 2 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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 255

Metadata

Authors
Haley, S. M., Coster, W. J., Andres, P. L., Ludlow, L. H., Ni, P., Bond, T. L. Y., Sinclair, S. J., & Jette, A. M.
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2004-01
Volume
42
Issue
1
Pages
49
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1981955759
Cited by
255
References
2
FWCI
26.89
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: Activity Outcome Measurement for Postacute Care. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.mlr.0000103520.43902.6c
The paper
Haley, S. M., Coster, W. J., Andres, P. L., Ludlow, L. H., Ni, P., Bond, T. L. Y., Sinclair, S. J., & Jette, A. M. (2004). Activity Outcome Measurement for Postacute Care. Medical Care. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000103520.43902.6c

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.