The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measuring handicap: the London Handicap Scale, a new outcome measure for chronic disease.
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE--To develop a handicap measurement scale in a self completion questionnaire format, with scale weights allowing quantification of handicap at an interval level of measurement. DESIGN--Adaptation of the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and handicaps into a practical questionnaire incorporating the dimensions of handicap mobility, occupation, physical independence, social integration, orientation, and economic self sufficiency and scale weights derived from interviews with a general population sample, with the technique of conjoint analysis. SETTING--Two general practices in different areas of London. SUBJECTS--240 adults aged 55-74 years randomly selected from the practices, 101 (42%) of whom agreed to be interviewed, and 79 (78%) of whom completed the exercise. MAIN MEASURES--Rating of severity of handicap associated with 30 hypothetical health scenarios on a visual analogue scale, from which was derived a matrix of scale weights ("part utilities") relating to different levels of disadvantage on each dimension, with a formula for combining them into an overall handicap score. Severity scores measured directly for five scenarios not used to derive the scale weights were compared with those calculated from the formula to validate the model. RESULTS--The part utilities obtained conformed with the expected hierarchy for each dimension, confirming the validity of the method. The measured severities and those calculated from the formula for the five scenarios used to validate the model agreed closely (Pearson's r = 0.98, p = 0.0009; Kendall's tau = 1.00, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS--This interval level handicap measurement scale will be useful in assessing both specific therapies and health services, in clinical trials, in analyses of cost effectiveness, and in assessments of quality assurance.
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
Cites
Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations
Ferguson, C. E., El-Dirghami, A., & Churchill, G. A. (1977) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151081 · Cited by 4,351
Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires
McDowell, I., & Newell, C. (1987) · Cited by 4,207
&NA; (1980) · International Journal of Rehabilitation Research · doi:10.1097/00004356-198012000-00032 · Cited by 1,197
Application of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory to Measure Social Preferences for Health States
Torrance, G. W., Boyle, M. H., & Horwood, S. P. (1982) · Operations Research · doi:10.1287/opre.30.6.1043 · Cited by 520
Wood, P. H. N. (1990) · Health Systems Research · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-75593-4_7 · Cited by 514
A Scale of Valuations of States of Illness: is there a Social Consensus?
ROSSER, R., & KIND, P. (1978) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/7.4.347 · Cited by 461
The International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps
Robinson, D. (1985) · International Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.3109/03790798509166118 · Cited by 383
Marketing research methodological foundations
Churchill, G. A., & Iacobucci, D. (1991) · Cited by 288
Quality of life: Assessment and application
(1989) · Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Physiology · doi:10.1016/0300-9629(89)90689-0 · Cited by 227
Handicap one year after a stroke: validity of a new scale.
Harwood, R., Gompertz, P., & Ebrahim, S. B. J. (1994) · Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp.57.7.825 · Cited by 156
Self-citation
Cited by
Developing the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0
Üstün, T. B., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., Rehm, J., Kennedy, C., Epping-Jordan, J., Saxena, S., von Korff, M., & Pull, C. (2010) · Bulletin of the World Health Organization · doi:10.2471/blt.09.067231 · Cited by 1,851
Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care
Ryan, M. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1530 · Cited by 938
PERENBOOM, R. J. M., & CHORUS, A. M. J. (2003) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/0963828031000137081 · Cited by 373
Cognitive Behavioral Psychotherapy for Depression Following Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Lincoln, N. B., & Flannaghan, T. (2003) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000044167.44670.55 · Cited by 232
Taylor, A. M., Phillips, K., Patel, K. V., Turk, D. C., Dworkin, R. H., Beaton, D., Clauw, D. J., Gignac, M. A. M., Markman, J. D., Williams, D. A., et al. (2016) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000577 · Cited by 208
Metadata
- Authors
- Harwood, R. H., Rogers, A., Dickinson, E., & Ebrahim, S.
- Venue
- Quality in Health Care
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1994-03
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 11-16
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 0963-8172
- 1475-3901
- OpenAlex
- W2102180020
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 21.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Measuring handicap: the London Handicap Scale, a new outcome measure for chronic disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/qshc.3.1.11
- The paper
- Harwood, R. H., Rogers, A., Dickinson, E., & Ebrahim, S. (1994). Measuring handicap: the London Handicap Scale, a new outcome measure for chronic disease. Quality in Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.3.1.11
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.