The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Scientific and Clinical Problems in Indexes of Functional Disability
Abstract
Indexes of functional disability are being used increasingly to rate the status of patients studied in clinical research or treated in clinical practice. To determine why so many indexes have been developed and to evaluate their scientific quality, we reviewed the construction and other attributes of 43 indexes that offer ratings for activities of daily living. The six most prominent problems, and some proposed solutions, are as follows: Ratings for the magnitude of performed tasks will be misleading unless the patient's effort or collaboration is suitably considered. Each patient's preferences should be sought to determine which types of disability are the most important goals of therapy. Special transition indexes should be developed if subtle or overt changes are not discerned from the repeated use of single-state indexes. Hierarchical scale arrangements can avoid the loss of descriptive power that occurs when multiple variables are aggregated merely as summations. Documentary evidence can be required to demonstrate the anticipated achievements of an index. New indexes can be constructed if the high statistical "reliability" and "validity" of established indexes are not accompanied by satisfactory clinical "sensibility."
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
Assessment of Older People: Self-Maintaining and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living
Lawton, M. P., & Brody, E. M. (1969) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/9.3_part_1.179 · Cited by 18,540
A Proposal for a New Method of Evaluation of the Newborn Infant.
Apgar, V. (1953) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/00000539-195301000-00041 · Cited by 2,015
Cited by
Common symptoms in ambulatory care: incidence, evaluation, therapy, and outcome
Kroenke, K., & Mangelsdorff, A. D. (1989) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/0002-9343(89)90293-3 · Cited by 947
Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification
Guyatt, G. H., Deyo, R. A., Charlson, M., Levine, M. N., & Mitchell, A. (1989) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(89)90128-5 · Cited by 480
Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF): properties and frontier of current knowledge
Aas, I. M. (2010) · Annals of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/1744-859x-9-20 · Cited by 341
Clinimetrics: the science of clinical measurements
Fava, G. A., Tomba, E., & Sonino, N. (2012) · International Journal of Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2011.02825.x · Cited by 233
Evidence‐based guidelines for interpretation of the Panic Disorder Severity Scale
Furukawa, T. A., Katherine Shear, M., Barlow, D. H., Gorman, J. M., Woods, S. W., Money, R., Etschel, E., Engel, R. R., & Leucht, S. (2009) · Depression and Anxiety · doi:10.1002/da.20532 · Cited by 163
Metadata
- Authors
- FEINSTEIN, A. R., JOSEPHY, B. R., & WELLS, C. K.
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 1986-09-01
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 413-420
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W2049838960
- Cited by
- 395
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 74.89
- 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: Scientific and Clinical Problems in Indexes of Functional Disability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-105-3-413
- The paper
- FEINSTEIN, A. R., JOSEPHY, B. R., & WELLS, C. K. (1986). Scientific and Clinical Problems in Indexes of Functional Disability. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-105-3-413
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.