Comparison of two functional independence scales with a participation measure in post-stroke rehabilitation.

The objectives of the study were to compare the association and responsiveness of the functional autonomy measurement system (SMAF) and functional independence measure (FIM) as outcome measures addressing functional independence in stroke patients involved in an intensive rehabilitation program and to compare their relationships with a social participation measure after rehabilitation period. One hundred and thirty-two people who had a stroke were evaluated with the SMAF and FIM during the rehabilitation period (T1: admission; T2: discharge; n=132) and twice after discharge (T3=2 weeks; n=118; T4=6 months later; n=102). At T3 and T4, a participation measure, the assessment of life habits (LIFE-H), was added. The main findings are: (1) the total scores on the SMAF and FIM are strongly correlated together (r=0.93 to 0.95; p<0.001); 2) the responsiveness of both functional independence scales is similar even though the SMAF total score is more responsive to change than the FIM total score (standardized response mean: 1.20 vs. 0.97; p<0.01); (3) the SMAF and FIM are related similarly to the daily activities domain of the participation scale; and finally (4) the social roles domain of the participation scale is less related to the SMAF and MIF than the daily activities domain; however, the SMAF score is more related to the social roles domain than the MIF. Our results support the need to use supplementary measures, such as participation measure, that cover not only physical function but also the other domains of participation, such as interpersonal relationships and leisure, that can be disrupted following a stroke.

[1]  C. Granger,et al.  Inter-rater agreement and stability of functional assessment in the community-based elderly. , 1994, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[2]  M L Niemi,et al.  Quality of life 4 years after stroke. , 1988, Stroke.

[3]  J. Desrosiers,et al.  Reliability of the revised functional autonomy measurement system (SMAF) for epidemiological research. , 1995, Age and ageing.

[4]  P. Disler,et al.  Predicting hours of care needed. , 1993, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[5]  C. Mulrow,et al.  Estimating and testing an index of responsiveness and the relationship of the index to power. , 1991, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[6]  G. Norman,et al.  Issues in the use of change scores in randomized trials. , 1989, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[7]  Marcus J. Fuhrer,et al.  Rehabilitation outcomes : analysis and measurement , 1987 .

[8]  C. St-Hilaire,et al.  Resources and Costs Associated with Disabilities of Elderly People Living at Home and in Institutions* , 2001, Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement.

[9]  Epidémiologie des accidents vasculaires cérébraux , 1992 .

[10]  Labi Ml,et al.  Psychosocial disability in physically restored long-term stroke survivors. , 1980, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[11]  J. Desrosiers,et al.  Comparison of cross-sectional and longitudinal designs in the study of aging of upper extremity performance. , 1998, The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences.

[12]  A J Thompson,et al.  Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure , 1999, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[13]  A. Yelnik,et al.  Construct validity of the functional independence measure (FIM): questioning the unidimensionality of the scale and the "value" of FIM scores. , 1999, Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[14]  Carl V. Granger,et al.  Advances in functional assessment for medical rehabilitation , 1986 .

[15]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.

[16]  S. Ebrahim,et al.  A patient-centred study of the consequences of stroke , 1998 .

[17]  P A Wolf,et al.  Epidemiologic profile of long-term stroke disability: the Framingham study. , 1979, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[18]  M. Walker,et al.  A randomized controlled trial of leisure rehabilitation after stroke , 1995 .

[19]  M. Mullee,et al.  Validation of the Frenchay Activities Index in a general population aged 16 years and older. , 2000, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[20]  F. Artru,et al.  [Unilateral hydrocephalus caused by abscess of the choroid plexus]. , 1992, Revue neurologique (Paris).

[21]  R L Hewer,et al.  Social reintegration after stroke: the first stages in the development of the Subjective Index of Physical and Social Outcome (SIPSO) , 1999, Clinical rehabilitation.

[22]  G St-Michel,et al.  Social consequences of long term impairments and disabilities: conceptual approach and assessment of handicap , 1998, International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation.

[23]  J. Whisnant,et al.  Disability and use of rehabilitation services following stroke in Rochester, Minnesota, 1975-1979. , 1987, Stroke.

[24]  Xiao-Li Meng,et al.  Comparing correlated correlation coefficients , 1992 .

[25]  John S. Green,et al.  A test-retest reliability study of the Barthel Index, the Rivermead Mobility Index, the Nottingham extended Activities of Daily Living Scale and the Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients , 2001, Disability and rehabilitation.

[26]  B. Sharrack,et al.  The psychometric properties of clinical rating scales used in multiple sclerosis. , 1999, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[27]  P. Duncan,et al.  Measurement of Motor Recovery After Stroke: Outcome Assessment and Sample Size Requirements , 1992, Stroke.

[28]  B. Hamilton A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. , 1987 .

[29]  W. Oczkowski,et al.  The functional independence measure: its use to identify rehabilitation needs in stroke survivors. , 1993, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[30]  D. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Setting the minimal metrically detectable change on disability rating scales. , 1997, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[31]  Diane P. Martin,et al.  A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. , 1993, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[32]  P. Wood,et al.  Appreciating the consequences of disease: the international classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. , 1980, WHO chronicle.

[33]  Lewis E. Kazis,et al.  Effect Sizes for Interpreting Changes in Health Status , 1989, Medical care.

[34]  M. Liang,et al.  Comparisons of Five Health Status Instruments for Orthopedic Evaluation , 1990, Medical care.

[35]  R. Hébert,et al.  The Functional Autonomy Measurement System (SMAF): description and validation of an instrument for the measurement of handicaps. , 1988, Age and ageing.

[36]  R. Harwood,et al.  Handicap one year after a stroke: validity of a new scale. , 1994, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.