Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 234

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Commitment to Change: Revision of HCFA's RAI

Open access
Morris, John N., Nonemaker, Sue, Murphy, Katharine, Hawes, Catherine, Fries, Brant E., Mor, Vincent, Phillips, Charles·1997·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract

OBJECTIVE : To describe the reliability of new assessment items and their clinical utility as judged by experienced nurse assessors, based on the results from the field test of Version 2.0 of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI). DESIGN : Independent dual assessment of residents of nursing facilities by staff nurses using a draft of Version 2.0 of the minimum data set (MDS). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS : A total of 187 randomly selected residents from 21 nursing homes in seven states volunteered to test Version 2.0 of the MDS. MEASUREMENT : The full array of MDS assessment items included measures in the following areas: Background information, cognitive patterns, communication/hearing, vision, mood and behavior, psychosocial well‐being, physical functioning and structural problems, continence, disease diagnoses, health condition, oral/nutritional status, dental status, skin condition, activity pursuit patterns, medications, special treatments and procedures, and discharge potential and overall status. RESULTS : Evaluative data address issues of MDS item utility and reliability. For new items, almost all achieved a reasonably high‐weighted Kappa interrater reliability; revised items also surpassed earlier items, and with the updated training materials, even the non‐changed items had higher average reliability levels. Based on the success of the field test and the positive response of the industry, Version 2.0 of the RAI has been adopted, and HCFA has initiated a more long‐range process to update further the RAI when necessary. CONCLUSION : Findings support the reliability and clinical utility of the new and revised assessment items incorporated by HCFA in Version 2.0 of the MDS.

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 · 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1997.tb02974.x

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.

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

Cited by

See all 234

Metadata

Authors
Morris, J. N., Nonemaker, S., Murphy, K., Hawes, C., Fries, B. E., Mor, V., & Phillips, C.
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1997-08
Volume
45
Issue
8
Pages
1011-1016
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
OpenAlex
W2039443748
Cited by
234
References
0
FWCI
29.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: A Commitment to Change: Revision of HCFA's RAI. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1997.tb02974.x
The paper
Morris, J. N., Nonemaker, S., Murphy, K., Hawes, C., Fries, B. E., Mor, V., & Phillips, C. (1997). A Commitment to Change: Revision of HCFA's RAI. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1997.tb02974.x

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.