The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Functional Independence Measure: A comparative validity and reliability study
Abstract
The majority of measurement scales used to evaluate outcome in rehabilitation are ordinal in nature and consequently statistically valid assessments of change are difficult to make. The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) can be weighted to possess interval properties, potentially allowing more accurate analysis of change. In this study the FIM was compared to the Barthel Index (BI) to determine its validity, reliability and ease of use in two groups of 25 patients undergoing neurorehabilitation. The FIM was considered to be more valid than the BI, and equally reliable in the assessment of disability. When the two disability scores were compared using subjective and objective assessment the agreement between them was comparable, although neither was high.
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
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Andrich, D. (1988) · doi:10.4135/9781412985598 · Cited by 1,345
Cited by
Gut microbiota composition correlates with diet and health in the elderly
Claesson, M. J., Jeffery, I. B., Conde, S., Power, S. E., O’Connor, E. M., Cusack, S., Harris, H. M. B., Coakley, M., Lakshminarayanan, B., O’Sullivan, O., et al. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11319 · Cited by 3,314
Beninato, M., Gill-Body, K. M., Salles, S., Stark, P. C., Black-Schaffer, R. M., & Stein, J. (2006) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2005.08.130 · Cited by 465
Robotic-Assisted Rehabilitation of the Upper Limb After Acute Stroke
Masiero, S., Celia, A., Rosati, G., & Armani, M. (2007) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.032 · Cited by 409
van der Putten, J. J. M. F., Hobart, J. C., Freeman, J. A., & Thompson, A. J. (1999) · Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp.66.4.480 · Cited by 384
Self-citationIssues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Participation
Salter, K., Jutai, J., Teasell, R., Foley, N., BItensky, J., & Bayley, M. (2005) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/0963828040008552 · Cited by 313
Metadata
- Authors
- Kidd, D., Stewart, G., Baldry, J., Johnson, J., Rossiter, D., Petruckevitch, A., & Thompson, A. J.
- Venue
- Disability and Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1995-01
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 10-14
- ISSN
- 0963-8288 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5165
- OpenAlex
- W2144280821
- Cited by
- 529
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 17.49
- 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 Independence Measure: A comparative validity and reliability study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3109/09638289509166622
- The paper
- Kidd, D., Stewart, G., Baldry, J., Johnson, J., Rossiter, D., Petruckevitch, A., & Thompson, A. J. (1995). The Functional Independence Measure: A comparative validity and reliability study. Disability and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638289509166622
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.
