Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 264

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 access
Harwood, R H, Rogers, A, Dickinson, E, Ebrahim, S·1994·Quality in Health Care

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/qshc.3.1.11

Cites

11 of 11 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 11 references

Cited by

See all 264

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.