Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 395

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

FEINSTEIN, ALVAN R., JOSEPHY, BRUCE R., WELLS, CAROLYN K.·1986·Annals of Internal Medicine

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/0003-4819-105-3-413

Cites

2 of 2 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

Cited by

See all 395

Metadata

Authors
FEINSTEIN, A. R., JOSEPHY, B. R., & WELLS, C. K.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
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

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.