SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

INTRODUCTION

  1. Top of page
  2. INTRODUCTION
  3. SF-36 PHYSICAL FUNCTIONING SUBSCALE (PF-10)
  4. HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (HAQ)
  5. MODIFIED HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (MHAQ)
  6. KATZ INDEX OF INDEPENDENCE IN ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING
  7. FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASURE (FIM)
  8. OSTEOARTHRITIS-FUNCTION-COMPUTER ADAPTIVE TEST (OA-FUNCTION-CAT)
  9. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  10. REFERENCES

Self-reported measures to assess and quantify functional status are important tools for clinicians and investigators. These measures qualify limitation with different types of functional activities and quantify the extent of limitation. We are particularly interested in measures of general functional status. Although these “generic” measures of function were originally developed in other patient populations, they are relevant to the field of rheumatology. In particular, these instruments have been found to be valid and reliable measures of function, sensitive to changes in function, and have distinct thresholds for important change in people with rheumatologic disease.

Some notable studies have been added to the literature for general functional status measures in the last decade. Most of these additions are in the area of identifying thresholds for minimum clinically important difference, i.e., the smallest amount of change associated with a minimally important decline or improvement in function. To reflect changes in clinical practice over the last decade, we chose to review the Functional Independence Measure, which is a commonly used measure in practice to assess function. Also, Computer Adaptive Testing has developed over the past decade, which represents an innovative and exciting change to how self-reported tests of function are administered. Therefore, the purpose of this report is to provide an update to measures of general functional status commonly employed for people with rheumatologic diseases and provide a review of a Computer Adaptive Testing measure of functioning for people with osteoarthritis.

SF-36 PHYSICAL FUNCTIONING SUBSCALE (PF-10)

  1. Top of page
  2. INTRODUCTION
  3. SF-36 PHYSICAL FUNCTIONING SUBSCALE (PF-10)
  4. HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (HAQ)
  5. MODIFIED HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (MHAQ)
  6. KATZ INDEX OF INDEPENDENCE IN ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING
  7. FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASURE (FIM)
  8. OSTEOARTHRITIS-FUNCTION-COMPUTER ADAPTIVE TEST (OA-FUNCTION-CAT)
  9. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  10. REFERENCES

Description

Purpose.

The PF-10 is a generic outcome measure designed to examine a person's perceived limitation with physical functioning (1) and is a subscale within the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36).

Content.

Subjects are asked if their health limits physical activity, basic mobility, and basic activities of daily living.

Number of items in scale.

There are 10 items.

Response options/scale.

Responses are rated on a Likert scale. For the SF-36 versions 1.0 and 2.0, each item is rated on a 3-point scale (yes, limited a lot; yes, limited a little; and no, not limited at all). For the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) version, each item is rated on a 5-point scale (not at all, very little, somewhat, quite a lot, and cannot do).

Recall period for items.

Respondents are asked to rate limitation at present for most questions and over the past 4 weeks for other questions.

Endorsements.

None.

Examples of use.

The PF-10 was developed as a generic health outcome instrument within the SF-36 for a wide variety of medical conditions in people ages 14–61. The PF-10 has been applied to older adult populations, as well as to people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), back pain, osteoarthritis (OA), and gout (2).

Practical Application

How to obtain.

The PF-10 instrument, scoring manual, and license are available from QualityMetric at www.qualitymetric.com. There is a charge at different rates for commercial and academic use. The PROMIS version of the PF-10 is available for viewing at http://www.nihpromis.org/default.aspx.

Method of administration.

Interviewer (in person or by telephone) or self-administered.

Scoring.

Answers to each question are summed to produce raw scores and then transformed to a 0–100 scale.

Score interpretation.

Higher scores represent better health status. For the SF-36 version 2.0, the total PF-10 score is standardized to a mean of 50. Population norms are available for the US (3) and the UK (4, 5). World data for cross-cultural comparisons are available as well (6).

Respondent burden.

Less than 10 minutes is needed to complete the instrument. Questions are worded at a sixth- to ninth-grade level.

Administrative burden.

Less than 10 minutes is necessary to administer the instrument and a few minutes are needed to score the results via computer. No training is required.

Translations/adaptations.

There are 2 versions of the PF-10: the original SF-36 version 1.0 and the updated SF-36 version 2.0. Most recently, the PROMIS created a 10-item physical functioning scale that has 5 of the same questions as the PF-10 versions pertaining to vigorous activities and basic mobility, and 5 questions pertaining to basic and instrumental activities of daily living (7). However, this review will focus on the SF-36 versions 1.0 and 2.0. The SF-36 versions of the PF-10 are available in more than 50 different languages. More information on the availability of the PF-10 in other languages can be found from the International Quality of Life Assessment project at www.iqola.org.

Psychometric Information

Method of development.

PF-10 questions were selected to assess a variety of physical activities ranging from easy to strenuous. The questionnaire was first examined in a group of subjects participating in the Medical Outcomes Study (8).

Acceptability.

Missing data are not common. The PF-10 was designed to have low ceiling and floor effects.

Reliability.

High test–retest reliability has been found in people with RA (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.93) (9) and low back pain (ICC 0.83–0.91) (10). High internal consistency has also been reported for older adults (Cronbach's α = 0.82) (11) and people with gout (Cronbach's α = >0.93) (12).

Validity.
Criterion validity.

The PF-10 has been found to be associated with both generic and disease-specific measures of functional outcome in a variety of rheumatologic patient populations. For subjects with hip or knee OA, Salaffi and colleagues reported a high correlation between the PF-10 and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index physical function subscale (r = −0.65) (13). Similarly, a moderate correlation between the PF-10 and the Timed Up and Go Test was reported in subjects following total hip or knee replacement (r = −0.34) (14). For people from Norway with RA, the PF-10 has been found to have strong correlations with the Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (r = −0.69) and the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale physical domain (r = −0.73) (15). Lastly, the PF-10 has been shown to be highly correlated with the Late Life Function and Disability Index in older adults (r = 0.74–0.88) (2).

Construct validity.

The PF-10 has been found to measure a single or unidimensional index in subjects with chronic medical and psychiatric conditions from the US (16), and in people with psoriatic arthritis (17). The PF-10 was also found to measure a unidimensional index among subjects from the general population from 7 countries, including Denmark, Germany, Italy, the US, Sweden, The Netherlands, and the UK (18).

Ability to detect change.

The PF-10 has been found to be a sensitive and responsive instrument to change in subjects with RA (9, 19), spine pathology (10, 20, 21), and chronic medical and psychiatric diseases (22). In particular, the PF-10 was able to discriminate between groups of people with RA at different levels of improvement measured by the American College of Rheumatology criteria following a drug trial (19). Similarly, the PF-10 was sensitive to change in people with spine pathology undergoing physical therapy (10). Lastly, using data from subjects with chronic disease within the Medical Outcomes Study, McHorney and colleagues reported that the PF-10 had similar sensitivity to change regardless whether scores were Rasch-transformed or not (22).

The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the PF-10 has been examined in subjects with spine pathology, specifically intervertebral disc herniation. In this patient population, the MCID is reported as ranging between 5 and 30 for the PF-10 (20).

Critical Appraisal of Overall Value to the Rheumatology Community

Strengths.

The PF-10 is an important instrument of general physical function relevant to the rheumatology community. It evaluates limitations in function common in people with rheumatology-related disease and can be used to evaluate changes following intervention, especially in people with RA and spine pathology.

Caveats and cautions.

The psychometrics for the PF-10 have not been consistently investigated across all rheumatologic conditions. For instance, more work is needed to establish MCID thresholds for the PF-10 in people with RA.

Clinical usability.

The psychometric evaluation of the PF-10 does support interpretation of scores for individual patients and can be employed in the clinic given the short administration time.

Research usability.

The psychometric evaluation of the PF-10 does support use in intervention studies and observational studies.

HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (HAQ)

  1. Top of page
  2. INTRODUCTION
  3. SF-36 PHYSICAL FUNCTIONING SUBSCALE (PF-10)
  4. HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (HAQ)
  5. MODIFIED HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (MHAQ)
  6. KATZ INDEX OF INDEPENDENCE IN ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING
  7. FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASURE (FIM)
  8. OSTEOARTHRITIS-FUNCTION-COMPUTER ADAPTIVE TEST (OA-FUNCTION-CAT)
  9. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  10. REFERENCES

Description

Purpose.

This review focuses on the HAQ disability index with an emphasis on the use of the HAQ as a measure of general function (23). The HAQ measures difficulty in performing activities of daily living. It is the most widely used functional measure in rheumatology. The HAQ was specifically developed for use among adults with arthritis, but it has since been used in a wide range of populations (24).

Content.

Questions assessing difficulty over the past week in 20 specific functions that are grouped into 8 categories: dressing and grooming, arising, eating, walking, personal hygiene, reaching, gripping, and other activities.

Number of items.

There are 20 items covering 8 subscales: dressing and grooming (2 items: dress yourself, including tying shoelaces and fastening buttons, and shampoo your hair); arising (2 items: stand up straight from an armless straight chair, get in and out of bed); eating (3 items: cut your meat, lift a full cup or glass to your mouth, open a new milk carton); walking (2 items: walk outdoors on flat ground, climb up 5 steps); personal hygiene (3 items: wash and dry your entire body, take a tub bath, get on and off the toilet); reaching (2 items: reach and get down a 5-pound object from just above your head, bend down to pick up clothing from the floor); gripping (3 items: open car doors, open jars that have been previously opened, turn faucets on and off); and other activities (3 items: run errands and shop, get in and out of a car, do chores such as vacuuming or yard work). In addition, the use of personal assistance, assistive aids, or devices is measured.

Response options/scale.

Each item is rated from 0–3, where 0 = no difficulty, 1 = some difficulty, 2 = much difficulty, and 3 = unable to do. The highest score within a category is used as the category score. Dependence on physical assistance or equipment raises the category score to 2. The HAQ score is calculated as the mean of the 8 category scores. Scores range from 0–3 in increments of 0.125. The overall score is not calculated if fewer than 6 category scores are completed.

Recall period for items.

The past week.

Endorsements.

None.

Examples of use.

The HAQ was developed for individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA).

Practical Application

How to obtain.

The English version of the HAQ and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) HAQ and scoring directions are provided free of charge at http://aramis.stanford.edu/.

Method of administration.

Interviewer (in person or by telephone) or self-administered (paper or electronic touch-screen version). The touch-screen version is self-explanatory and accessible for people with reduced motor function (25).

Scoring.

The HAQ is hand scored. Alternate methods of scoring have been developed (for example, scoring without taking use of assistance or aids into account [26] or using the mean category score instead of the highest score [27]), but these scoring methods have not gained wide use. Wolfe suggests that even if alternative scoring methods are used, the traditional score should also be calculated in order to be compare with published data (28).

Score interpretation.

Higher scores reflect more activity limitation. The overall estimated normal HAQ score was 0.25, with an average of 0.18 for males and 0.28 for females within a general population sample of 1,530 of people age ≥30 years in Central Finland (29). Approximately one-third of the respondents reported some sort of disability (HAQ >0). The prevalence of rates of disability increase exponentially after age 50 years (29).

Respondent burden.

Less than 10 minutes are needed to complete the HAQ. Questions are worded at a sixth- to ninth-grade level.

Administrative burden.

Less than 10 minutes are needed to administer the HAQ, and less than 2 minutes are needed to score the HAQ. No training is necessary.

Translations/adaptations.

Many adaptations and/or translations are available, including English (US, Canada, Australia), Belgian Flemish and French, Canadian French, Chinese (Cantonese, Hong Kong), Danish, French, German, Spanish (US, Spain, many Central and South American countries), Swedish, and Turkish. For a complete listing, see Bruce and Fries (30). A revised version of the HAQ, the HAQ-II, has been developed and contains 10 items (31). A PROMIS HAQ has been developed, which contains the same 20 items as the original HAQ, but they were qualitatively improved to increase the clarity and psychometric properties of the measure (32).

Psychometric Information

Method of development.

The HAQ was originally developed by using questions from a variety of instruments employed in the 1970s (23).

Acceptability.

Missing data are not common. The HAQ has ceiling limitations, i.e., people with mild functional limitation can have normal HAQ scores.

Reliability.

High test–retest reliability has been found in subjects with gout. Specifically, the test–retest reliability of the entire HAQ was intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.76, with individual subscales ranging from ICC 0.68 to ICC 0.80 (33). High correlations between interviewer versus self-administered forms of the instrument have been reported (range 0.60–0.88) (24), as well as between a touch-screen and paper version (ICC 0.99) (25).

Validity.

For criterion validity, Daltroy et al (34) found a strong correlation (−0.72) between HAQ scores and a physical capacity measure in older adults.

For construct validity, HAQ scores are comparable across people with RA, OA, or gout using item response theory, which suggests the HAQ measures a single underlying construct of disability (35). Several studies have shown significant correlations of HAQ scores with other measures of function (e.g., Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index [WOMAC]) supporting the HAQ as a valid measure of general function (30, 36–38).

Ability to detect change.

The HAQ is a sensitive and responsive measure to changes in function in people with knee or hip OA. For people undergoing hip or knee joint replacement, the HAQ is responsive to functional change following surgery (39). Similarly, the HAQ has been found to be more sensitive to change over 3 years in people with hip or knee OA than the WOMAC (38). The HAQ has been found to have a ceiling effect, i.e., it does not discriminate well between people with low levels of disability (31, 40). The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the HAQ has been examined in a variety of rheumatologic-related populations including RA, psoriatic arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, spondylarthropathies, and scleroderma. The range for MCID is −0.08 to −0.25 for improvement and 0.13 to 0.22 for decline (41–47). Several authors have commented that MCID values may depend on the severity of disability. Specifically, less change was needed to meet a meaningful threshold for improvement for people with low levels of disability compared with those with a high level of disability (41, 43, 46).

Critical Appraisal of Overall Value to the Rheumatology Community

Strengths.

The HAQ measures important limitations in function relevant to many people with rheumatology-related disorders. Given that MCID values have been established for multiple rheumatologic populations, the HAQ is appropriate for evaluating interventions. It is notable that all studies investigating MCID reported a similar range of values, making the HAQ a useful measurement of function and change in function.

Caveats and cautions.

The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the HAQ requires more investigation. Specifically, the psychometrics of the HAQ need to be established across more rheumatologic patient populations. Clinical investigators should be aware that the HAQ does have floor effects, and may be less responsive to change among individuals with low levels of disability.

Clinical usability.

The psychometric evaluation of the HAQ does support interpretation of scores for individual patients with moderate to severe disability and can be employed in the clinic given the short administration time.

Research usability.

The psychometric evaluation of the HAQ does support use in intervention studies and observational studies, although sensitivity to change will likely be limited in people with mild disability.

MODIFIED HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (MHAQ)

  1. Top of page
  2. INTRODUCTION
  3. SF-36 PHYSICAL FUNCTIONING SUBSCALE (PF-10)
  4. HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (HAQ)
  5. MODIFIED HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (MHAQ)
  6. KATZ INDEX OF INDEPENDENCE IN ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING
  7. FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASURE (FIM)
  8. OSTEOARTHRITIS-FUNCTION-COMPUTER ADAPTIVE TEST (OA-FUNCTION-CAT)
  9. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  10. REFERENCES

Description

Purpose.

The MHAQ is a modified version of the HAQ (48).

Content.

The number of specific activities queried is reduced from 20 to 8 (1 item is used from each of the 8 categories covered in the HAQ). The MHAQ has 4 subscales that assess degree of difficulty, satisfaction with function, change in function over the past 6 months, and perceived need for help with each activity. The degree of difficulty subscale is the most commonly used.

Number of items.

There are 8 items (dressing, arising, eating, walking, hygiene, reaching, gripping, and getting in and out of car) repeated in each of the 4 subscales.

Response options/scale.

For the difficulty subscale (“Are you able to…?”), the scale is 0 = without any difficulty, 1 = with some difficulty, 2 = with much difficulty, and 3 = unable to do. Any positive response regarding help or assistive devices raises the score to 2. For satisfaction (“How satisfied are you with your ability to…?”), 0 = satisfied and 1 = dissatisfied. For change in difficulty (“Compared to 6 months ago, how difficult is it now [this week] to…?”), 0 = less difficult now, 1 = no change, and 2 = more difficult now. For need for help (Do you need help to…?”), 0 = do not need help and 1 = need help. Scale scores are the mean of the scores on the 8 items within the scale: difficulty 0–3, satisfaction 0–1, change in function 0–2, and need for help 0–1.

Recall period for items.

Up to 6 months.

Endorsements.

None.

Examples of use.

People with rheumatic conditions (48).

Practical Application

How to obtain.

Available in original reference (48).

Method of administration.

Interviewer or self-administered.

Scoring.

Arithmetic calculation by hand.

Score interpretation.

Higher scores reflect poorer health.

Respondent burden.

Less than 5 minutes are needed to complete the MHAQ. Questions are worded at a sixth- to ninth-grade level.

Administrative burden.

Less than 5 minutes are needed to administer the MHAQ, and less than 2 minutes are needed to score the MHAQ. No training is necessary.

Translations/adaptations.

Two subsequent versions of the HAQ have been developed, the Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (48), and the HAQ-II (31). Both instruments were developed to address ceiling problems associated with the MHAQ (40).

Psychometric Information

Method of development.

Questions from the MHAQ are directly from the HAQ.

Acceptability.

Missing data are not common. The MHAQ has floor limitations and ceiling limitations (48).

Reliability.

The test–retest reliability for the difficulty scale over 1 month was reported as 0.91 (48).

Validity.

For concurrent validity for the difficulty scale, the MHAQ is highly correlated with the overall score of the HAQ (0.88), the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale physical component (0.80), and the Short Form 36 physical function scale (0.71) in people with rheumatoid arthritis (40). Blalock and colleagues also examined the equivalency of the HAQ with the MHAQ, and found that although the scores were highly correlated, the MHAQ scores were consistently and significantly lower (indicating better function) than the HAQ score (49). Uhlig and coauthors also found large numerical differences in scores, especially at higher disability levels (40). In every category, HAQ items chosen for the MHAQ had a lower mean than the MHAQ-excluded items (49). For construct validity for the difficulty scale, the MHAQ scores have been found to be associated with measures of physical performance (e.g., walk test, grip strength) (50). For construct validity for dissatisfaction with function scale, scores were incrementally greater (more dissatisfied) as difficulty in function increased (48).

Ability to detect change.

For the difficulty scale, Blalock and colleagues suggest that the MHAQ is relatively insensitive to low levels of disability, and because of its restricted range and skewed distribution, should be used with caution when the intent is to assess functional change (49). Uhlig et al also reported a considerable ceiling effect for the MHAQ (40). Stucki et al (scores <0.3 [51]) and Wolfe (scores ≤1.0 [28]) also noted clustering of scores at the low end of the scale. Ziebland et al found that the MHAQ change in difficulty scale was more sensitive to changes in clinical variables (i.e., correlated more highly with variables such as grip strength, pain, morning stiffness, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate) than a pre-post difference in the traditional HAQ score (52).

Critical Appraisal of Overall Value to the Rheumatology Community

Strengths.

Similar to the HAQ, the MHAQ measures important limitations in function relevant to many people with rheumatology-related disorders. Given its abbreviated form, the MHAQ should be considered when the full version of the HAQ cannot be implemented due to time constraints.

Caveats and cautions.

The majority of psychometric analysis of the MHAQ has focused on the difficulty subscale, and has generally found that it appears to be less psychometrically sound than the HAQ. Blalock et al noted that scores on the MHAQ were consistently lower than those on the HAQ (49). Mean differences on the overall difficulty score were 0.67 lower using HAQ scores calculated with adjustment for help and/or assistive devices, and 0.52 lower using HAQ scores without such adjustments. The MHAQ does not make adjustments for use of help or assistive devices. Blalock also noted that while the HAQ scores were normally distributed across the scale's full possible range (0–3), MHAQ scores were not normally distributed and ranged only from 0–1.75. Similar findings were also noted by Stucki et al (51) and Wolfe (28). The MHAQ also has a considerable ceiling effect, which is greater than that of the HAQ (40). There are conflicting reports about correlations between MHAQ scores and clinical and laboratory variables. Wolfe concluded that the advantages in the length of the MHAQ over the HAQ were offset by loss of sensitivity and responsiveness to change (28).

Clinical usability.

The psychometric evaluation of the MHAQ does support limited use in the clinic, however, floor and ceiling effects should be considered when interpreting scores.

Research usability.

Given the MHAQ's limited ability to detect change, research use is not recommended.

KATZ INDEX OF INDEPENDENCE IN ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING

  1. Top of page
  2. INTRODUCTION
  3. SF-36 PHYSICAL FUNCTIONING SUBSCALE (PF-10)
  4. HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (HAQ)
  5. MODIFIED HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (MHAQ)
  6. KATZ INDEX OF INDEPENDENCE IN ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING
  7. FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASURE (FIM)
  8. OSTEOARTHRITIS-FUNCTION-COMPUTER ADAPTIVE TEST (OA-FUNCTION-CAT)
  9. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  10. REFERENCES

Description

Purpose.

To quantify independence in activities of daily living (ADL) across a wide range of patient populations (53).

Content.

Basic ADL (bathing, dressing, toileting, transfers, continence, and feeding). Katz et al noted that the loss of functional skills occurs in a specific order, with the most complex lost first (54). The scoring method for this scale reflects this hierarchy of function.

Number of items.

6, 1 for each ADL.

Response options/scale.

Each ADL is scored on a 3-point scale of independence. Items are ordered by difficulty. The scoring reflects this, although some variation in the hierarchy of difficulty is allowed. Katz reported that ADL functions of 86% of evaluated subjects were consistent with the hierarchy (54). Score range is A–G or 0–6.

Recall period for items.

Immediate.

Endorsements.

None.

Examples of use.

The Katz Index of ADL has been used in older adults (55), people with stroke (56), and older adults with hip fracture (57).

Practical Application

How to obtain.

Available from original reference (54) and at www.npcrc.org/resources/resources_show.htm?doc_id=376169.

Method of administration.

Examiner-administered via observation of the patient.

Scoring.

Independence in various combinations of ADL determines ordinal rank on the alpha scale, or the number of ADLs for which the individual is dependent for the numeric scale. Ratings are made are on an 8-level ordinal scale, where A = independence in feeding, continence, transferring, going to toilet, dressing, and bathing; B = independent in all but 1 of these functions; C = independent in all but bathing and 1 additional function; D = independent in all but bathing, dressing, and 1 additional function; E = independent in all but bathing, dressing, going to toilet, and 1 additional function; F = independent in all but bathing, dressing, going to toilet, transferring, and 1 additional function; G = dependent in all 6 functions; and other = dependent in at least 2 functions, but not classifiable as C, D, E, or F. Katz and Akpom later proposed a simplified scoring system in which individuals are scored 0–6, reflecting the number of ADLs in which they are dependent (58).

Score interpretation.

Scores reflect the specific ADLs or number of dependent ADLs. Higher (alphabetically or numerically) scores reflect greater independence.

Respondent burden.

Five minutes to complete. Instrument is performance based.

Administrative burden.

Must observe the patient in each ADL to determine level of independence.

Translations/adaptations.

The Katz Index of ADL has been adapted into several versions that are comparable to the original (59, 60), while others have been modified (61, 62). The Katz Index of ADL has also been translated into Spanish (63).

Psychometric Information

Method of development.

The Katz Index of ADL was developed from the observations of inpatients with hip fractures. Observations were made by physicians, nurses, and other health professionals (54).

Acceptability.

The Katz Index of ADL measures only basic ADLs, and therefore has ceiling effects, i.e., the index cannot discriminate well among people with no and mild limitations.

Reliability.

The interrater reliability is 0.95 or better after training (54, 64). The coefficient of reproducibility (a measure of the internal consistency of an ordered measure) is 0.96–0.99 (65). In a study examining the reliability and validity of self-reported limitations in ADL among Turkish, Moroccan, and indigenous Dutch elderly in The Netherlands, Reijneveld et al reported that internal consistency reliabilities were good for all ethnic groups, being slightly higher for Turkish and Moroccan elderly people than for Dutch elderly (66).

Validity.

Regarding construct validity, the Katz Index of ADL is associated with scores from the Barthel Index (r = 0.78 [67], κ = 0.77 [68]). The Spanish versions of the Katz Index of ADL are associated with mortality, institutionalization, and utilization of social health services (63). For predictive validity, the Katz Index of ADL is associated with mobility dysfunction (0.50) and house confinement (0.39) among older patients 2 years later (69). There is also a correlation between ADL dependency level and mortality among nursing home residents (64). Comparing patients at 1-month poststroke, those with grade A-B-C at admission were more likely to go home compared with those with a grade of D-E-F-G (56).

Ability to detect change.

The scale had a significant floor effect, in that it is relatively insensitive to variations at low levels of disability (36). Scores on the Katz ADL scale are dependent on the physical environment, i.e., different scores may be obtained for individuals in different settings or with different environmental modifications (37).

Critical Appraisal of Overall Value to the Rheumatology Community

Strengths.

The Katz Index of ADL measures important functional limitations, which can occur in rheumatologic patient populations.

Caveats and cautions.

There has been little investigation of sensitivity and responsiveness of the Katz Index of ADL. Most problematic is potential for ceiling effects with people with mild limitations in ADLs. This could lead to the index not being responsive to changes in ADLs in people with low levels of disability.

Clinical usability.

The psychometric evaluation provides some support for the clinical use of the Katz Index of ADL, however, more robust measures of ADL function, such as the Functional Independence Measure should be considered.

Research usability.

Use of the Katz Index of ADL in research studies is not well supported.

FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASURE (FIM)

  1. Top of page
  2. INTRODUCTION
  3. SF-36 PHYSICAL FUNCTIONING SUBSCALE (PF-10)
  4. HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (HAQ)
  5. MODIFIED HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (MHAQ)
  6. KATZ INDEX OF INDEPENDENCE IN ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING
  7. FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASURE (FIM)
  8. OSTEOARTHRITIS-FUNCTION-COMPUTER ADAPTIVE TEST (OA-FUNCTION-CAT)
  9. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  10. REFERENCES

Description

Purpose.

The FIM estimates the level of assistance needed for patients to complete basic activities of daily living (ADL) (70). The FIM was designed to be an assessment tool that could be implemented universally across all patient populations within an inpatient rehabilitation hospital environment (70).

Content.

The FIM includes 18 basic ADLs, such as self-care, sphincter control, transfers, locomotion, communication, and social cognition. Clinicians score patients on a 7-point scale ranging from dependent to independent, which reflects the level of assistance needed to complete each ADL.

Number of items.

The FIM items are organized into the motor and cognitive domains, which are further organized into 4 subscales for the motor domain and 2 subscales for the cognitive domain.

Response options/scale.

A trained health professional rates a patient on a scale of 1–7, where 1 = total assistance (the patient provides <25% effort to complete each task), 2 = maximal assistance (25–49% effort), 3 = moderate assistance (50–74% effort), 4 = minimal assistance (>75% effort), 5 = supervision/set up (need for supervision but no physical contact), 6 = modified independence (use of a device or need for more than a reasonable time to complete each task), and 7 = complete independence (the patient completes each task in a timely and safe manner). Different health professionals can score sections specific to their discipline. For instance, a physical therapist can score the mobility-related items for a patient while an occupational therapist scores the ADL-related items. There are 2 gross score classifications: dependent (helper: scores 1–5) and independent (no helper: scores 6–7). The total FIM score is calculated by summing the score of each of the 18 items.

Recall period for items.

Immediate.

Endorsements.

The FIM is used to determine payment for inpatient acute rehabilitation services from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. In particular, the FIM is used to determine coverage for patients under Medicare Part A.

Examples of use.

Individuals within the inpatient acute rehabilitation hospital setting.

Practical Application

How to obtain.

The FIM System program is available at http://www.udsmr.org/. A sample of the FIM instrument can be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=physmedrehab&part=A11332&rendertype=figure&id=A11340.

Method of administration.

Observation by members of an interdisciplinary team.

Scoring.

Specific scoring instructions apply to the FIM. Training manuals for scoring are available from the Centers from Medicare and Medicaid Services, http://www.cms.gov/InpatientRehabFacPPS/04_IRFPAI.asp.

Score interpretation.

Scores range from 18–126. Higher scores represent more independence. A score of 18 represents complete dependence, while a score of 126 represents complete independence. The total FIM score is appropriate to report if the goal of assessment is to determine the overall burden of care (71). There are 2 domains of the FIM: motor and cognitive. The motor domain subscales include self-care (6 items: eating, grooming, bathing, dressing upper body, dressing lower body, and toileting); sphincter control (2 items: bladder management, bowel management); transfers (3 items: bed/chair/wheelchair, toilet, tub/shower); and locomotion (2 items: walk or wheelchair, stairs). The motor domain was developed from the Barthel Index (72). The cognitive domain subscales include communication (2 items: comprehension, expression) and social cognition (3 items: social interaction, problem solving, memory). The mean ± SD admission FIM total was 73.2 ± 12.9 and discharge FIM total was 101.7 ± 12.9 for patients with lower extremity joint replacement who were discharged from a rehabilitation program in 2007 (73).

Respondent burden.

30–45 minutes to perform all activities. Patients are asked to perform each functional task in order to generate a score, which may be difficult.

Administrative burden.

7 minutes to collect demographic data and 10 minutes to score. Formal training is needed to administer the FIM. A training examination is available at: http://www.udsmr.org/.

Translations/adaptations.

The FIM has been translated into different languages including Italian and Turkish (74, 75).

Psychometric Information

Method of development.

The FIM was created to provide an improvement over the Barthel Index. It has been developed and tested mainly in people with neurologic pathology.

Acceptability.

Missing data are not common. The instrument has some ceiling effects within each of the motor and cognitive domains.

Reliability.

High reliability has been reported for the FIM. In a quantitative review of 11 studies, Ottenbacher et al reported high interrater and test–retest reliability for health professionals with a variety of educational backgrounds and levels of training (76). Based on 1,568 patients with a variety of medical diagnoses, the median interrater reliability was 0.95 and test–retest reliability was 0.95. Median reliability for the 6 subscales ranged from 0.78 (social cognition) to 0.95 (self-care), and the 18 individual items ranged from 0.61 (comprehension) to 0.90 (toilet transfer). Pollak and colleagues also found high test–retest reliability for the motor (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.90) and cognitive domains (ICC 0.80) in a cohort of older adults age ≥80 years residing in a multilevel retirement community (77).

High internal consistency was found for the total FIM score (Cronbach's α = 0.88–0.97) (71, 78), the motor domain (α = 0.84–0.97) (71, 79), and the cognitive domain (α = 0.86–0.95) (71) within a large sample of inpatients undergoing acute rehabilitation with various diagnoses. However, lower internal consistency was reported for the locomotion subscale (α = 0.68), suggesting that the individual items (ambulation/wheelchair use and stair climbing) may be measuring a different latent construct of function (78). Internal consistency was also high for FIM scores obtained via interview (α = 0.94) or observation (α = 0.90) (80).

Validity.

Regarding concurrent validity, FIM scores assigned by a single nonclinician interview and by observation by a team of health care professionals were similar (ICC 0.74 for admission FIM and ICC 0.76 for discharge FIM), which provides evidence that a multi-interviewer–administered FIM is a valid method for collecting data (81). For construct validity, the separation of the FIM into motor and cognitive domains has been found to be a valid method of measuring activity limitation (82–84). The items in each domain show a generally consistent pattern of difficulty rating across multiple medical diagnoses, with eating the least difficult motor item to achieve an independent rating, and stair climbing the most difficult (82–84). For cognitive items, expression is the least difficult and problem solving is the most difficult (82, 84). FIM scores are correlated with age, comorbidity, and discharge destination (78), as well as other functional measures, such as the Barthel Index and the Functional Assessment Measure (79, 80, 85, 86).

While little work has examined the predictive validity of the FIM within rheumatologic patient populations, several studies have examined this within stroke. Trends from these studies can be carefully considered for patients with rheumatologic conditions who are at an inpatient rehabilitation hospital. Admission FIM scores have been shown to predict length of stay and discharge FIM scores in a rehabilitation hospital following stroke (80, 87–91). In particular, an increase in the admission score of the motor domain by 1 point is correlated with a 1.1-day decrease in average rehabilitation length of stay for patients with stroke (87). There is a strong association between total FIM scores and discharge destination, i.e., discharge home versus skilled nursing facility (90, 92–95). A majority of patients with stroke with admission FIM scores >80 are discharged home, while less than half with admission FIM scores <40 are discharged home, regardless of age (94). Social support has been shown to be a decisive factor for discharge destination, especially for those requiring high levels of assistance (90, 93).

Ability to detect change.

The FIM, especially the motor FIM, is highly responsive in detecting changes in ADL performance (78, 80, 96), but the cognitive FIM has a poor responsiveness due to its significant ceiling effect seen across a wide variety of medical diagnoses (96–99). There is comparable responsiveness between the FIM and the Barthel Index (79, 80, 85, 96, 100). Beninato et al reported a minimum clinically important difference for the total FIM of 22, the motor FIM of 17, and the cognitive FIM of 3 in the stroke population when anchored to a physician's assessment of minimally clinically important change (101).

Critical Appraisal of Overall Value to the Rheumatology Community

Strengths.

The FIM is a widely used tool in the rehabilitation setting across a broad range of medical diagnoses including rheumatologic diagnoses. The FIM is appropriate for evaluating interventions for people with severe functional limitation.

Caveats and cautions.

The FIM is not intended for community-dwelling adults who are independent in most functional activities. Future work is needed to validate the predictive validity of the FIM within rheumatologic patient populations.

Clinical usability.

The psychometric evaluation does support interpretation of scores for individuals with severe functional limitation. Clinical use is primarily done in an inpatient acute rehabilitation setting.

Research usability.

The psychometric evaluation does support use of the FIM within intervention studies and observational studies.

OSTEOARTHRITIS-FUNCTION-COMPUTER ADAPTIVE TEST (OA-FUNCTION-CAT)

  1. Top of page
  2. INTRODUCTION
  3. SF-36 PHYSICAL FUNCTIONING SUBSCALE (PF-10)
  4. HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (HAQ)
  5. MODIFIED HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (MHAQ)
  6. KATZ INDEX OF INDEPENDENCE IN ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING
  7. FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASURE (FIM)
  8. OSTEOARTHRITIS-FUNCTION-COMPUTER ADAPTIVE TEST (OA-FUNCTION-CAT)
  9. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  10. REFERENCES

Description

Purpose.

The OA-FUNCTION-CAT employs computer adaptive testing to estimate a respondent's level of functioning. It was developed as a disease-specific measure for people with hip or knee OA (102).

Content.

The OA-FUNCTION-CAT utilizes an item bank of 125 functional activities specific to hip or knee OA.

Number of items in scale.

The OA-FUNCTION-CAT selects 5, 10, or 15 items from the 125-item bank for administration.

Recall period for items.

Over the past month on an average day.

Endorsements.

None.

Examples of use.

The OA-Function-CAT was developed in a hip and knee OA cohort of subjects (102).

Practical Application

How to obtain.

Contact CREcare (http://www.crecare.com/home.html) regarding cost and availability of the instrument. The 125-item bank is available for no fee at http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/supplementary/ar2760-S1.doc.

Method of administration.

A CAT tailors assessment to each individual by selecting and administering subsequent questions based on the individual's response to the previous question. The program begins by selecting a question from the middle of the continuum of the calibrated item bank. Based on how the respondent answers the question, the computer calculates an initial score and level of precision. The CAT will conclude the test based on predetermined stop rules based on level of precision and/or a maximum number of items that are to be used to estimate the score. After the first question is answered, the program decides if the stop rule has been met. If not, another question is selected from the item bank based on the answer given for the previous question. This process is repeated until the stop rule has been satisfied, and a final score is calculated. This approach allows for the selection of items that provide the most relevant information at the level of the individual's current score estimate, therefore eliminating irrelevant questions from being asked (102–104).

Scoring.

Continuous scale. For the functional difficulty scale, items are reported in terms of amount of difficulty in performing each function (none, a little, or a lot). For the functional pain scale, items are reported in terms of pain severity in performing each function (none, mild or moderate, or severe). The computer automatically calculates an outcome score representing how much limitation the individual has within the spectrum of functional limitation. This score is based on the individual's response to each of the questions asked.

Interpretation of scores.

Scores range from 0–100. Higher scores represent higher function and less pain. The score produced on the CAT can be compared to other OA-FUNCTION-CAT scores regardless of the specific questions that were asked to generate the score. The OA-FUNCTION-CAT calculates a functional outcome score that can be compared within and between respondents.

Respondent burden.

15 or fewer questions are asked (questions written on a sixth-grade level of comprehension).

Administrative burden.

Minimal burden since the computer program calculates the score in real time, so the score is available immediately.

Translations/adaptations.

None.

Training to interpret.

Not reported.

Psychometric Information.

Reliability.

There is high level of accuracy between the 5-, 10-, and 15-item OA-FUNCTION-CATs and the full item bank (Pearson's r = 0.92, 0.96, and 0.97, respectively, for the functional difficulty subscale and 0.89, 0.95, and 0.97, respectively, for the functional pain subscale) among people with hip or knee OA. There is high conditional reliability, i.e., examinee level reliability (105), for both the functional difficulty and functional pain subscales (95% of the sample scores achieved reliability estimates >0.97 and >0.96, respectively) (102).

Validity.

Regarding construct validity, both the functional difficulty and functional domain subgroups fit a unidimensional model. Both of the OA-FUNCTION-CAT subscales cover a broader estimated scoring range than the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), especially at the upper, i.e., higher functioning, end of the scale. The OA-FUNCTION-CAT had less of a ceiling effect than the WOMAC (0.6% of subjects were at the ceiling for the OA-FUNCTION-CAT functional pain subscale versus 6.4% for the WOMAC pain scale, and 0.6% of subjects were at the ceiling for the OA-FUNCTION-CAT functional difficulty subscale versus 3.0% for the WOMAC physical function scale). The OA-FUNCTION-CAT did not have a floor effect (102).

Ability to detect change.

The 10-item OA-FUNCTION-CAT has a higher degree of precision than the WOMAC across the full range of scores for both subscales, especially at the upper end of the scale in the functional pain subscale within people with hip or knee OA (102).

Critical Appraisal of Overall Value to the Rheumatology Community

Strengths.

The OA-FUNCTION-CAT is an innovative method of measuring patient reported outcomes relevant to people with rheumatologic related disorders. The OA-FUNCTION-CAT has improved psychometric properties and requires fewer questions compared with legacy measures. Specifically, CATs offer a highly reliable and precise method to quantify patient reported limitations along a broad continuum. In addition, CAT scores can be estimated after only a few questions are answered, which decreases overall time and cost of administration.

Caveats and cautions.

Future work is needed to examine the test–retest reliability of the OA-FUNCTION-CAT; utilization of CAT methods for estimating patient-reported outcomes is likely to increase among clinicians and researchers.

Clinical usability.

The psychometric evaluation of the OA-FUNCTION-CAT supports interpretation of scores to make decisions about individuals. Given the minimal burden on patients and clinicians, the OA-FUNCTION-CAT is very appropriate to use clinically.

Research usability.

The OA-FUNCTION-CAT can be used within intervention trials and observational studies given the psychometrics of this instrument. Values representing meaningful change have yet to be established which may limit clinical and research application.

REFERENCES

  1. Top of page
  2. INTRODUCTION
  3. SF-36 PHYSICAL FUNCTIONING SUBSCALE (PF-10)
  4. HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (HAQ)
  5. MODIFIED HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (MHAQ)
  6. KATZ INDEX OF INDEPENDENCE IN ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING
  7. FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASURE (FIM)
  8. OSTEOARTHRITIS-FUNCTION-COMPUTER ADAPTIVE TEST (OA-FUNCTION-CAT)
  9. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  10. REFERENCES
  • 1
    Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 47383.
  • 2
    Dubuc N, Haley S, Ni P, Kooyoomjian J, Jette A. Function and disability in late life: comparison of the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument to the Short-Form-36 and the London Handicap Scale. Disabil Rehabil 2004; 26: 36270.
  • 3
    Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, McHorney CA, Rogers WH, Raczek A. Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care 1995; 33 Suppl: AS26479.
  • 4
    Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Wright L. Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age. BMJ 1993; 306: 143740.
  • 5
    Bowling A, Bond M, Jenkinson C, Lamping DL. Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey questionnaire: which normative data should be used? Comparisons between the norms provided by the Omnibus Survey in Britain, the Health Survey for England and the Oxford Healthy Life Survey. J Public Health Med 1999; 21: 25570.
  • 6
    Ware JE Jr, Gandek B, Kosinski M, Aaronson NK, Apolone G, Brazier J, et al. The equivalence of SF-36 summary health scores estimated using standard and country-specific algorithms in 10 countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 116770.
  • 7
    Bruce B, Fries JF, Ambrosini D, Lingala B, Gandek B, Rose M, et al. Better assessment of physical function: item improvement is neglected but essential. Arthritis Res Ther 2009; 11: R191.
  • 8
    Stewart AL, Ron DH, Ware JE Jr. The MOS Short-Form General Health Survey: reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care 1988; 26: 72435.
  • 9
    Ruta DA, Hurst NP, Kind P, Hunter M, Stubbings A. Measuring health status in British patients with rheumatoid arthritis: reliability, validity and responsiveness of the short form 36-item health survey (SF-36). Br J Rheumatol 1998; 37: 42536.
  • 10
    Davidson M, Keating JL. A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther 2002; 82: 824.
  • 11
    Bohannon RW, DePasquale L. Physical Functioning Scale of the Short-Form (SF) 36: internal consistency and validity with older adults. J Geriatr Phys Ther 2010; 33: 168.
  • 12
    Ten Klooster PM, Oude Voshaar MA, Taal E, van de Laar MA. Comparison of measures of functional disability in patients with gout. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2011; 50: 70913.
  • 13
    Salaffi F, Carotti M, Grassi W. Health-related quality of life in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: comparison of generic and disease-specific instruments. Clin Rheumatol 2005; 24: 2937.
  • 14
    Gandhi R, Tsvetkov D, Davey JR, Syed KA, Mahomed NN. Relationship between self-reported and performance-based tests in a hip and knee joint replacement population. Clin Rheumatol 2009; 28: 2537.
  • 15
    Kvien TK, Kaasa S, Smedstad LM. Performance of the Norwegian SF-36 Health Survey in patients with rheumatoid arthritis II: a comparison of the SF-36 with disease-specific measures. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 107786.
  • 16
    Haley SM, McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10) I: unidimensionality and reproducibility of the Rasch item scale. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 67184.
  • 17
    Taylor WJ, McPherson KM. Using Rasch analysis to compare the psychometric properties of the Short Form 36 physical function score and the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index in patients with psoriatic arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 57: 7239.
  • 18
    Raczek AE, Ware JE, Bjorner JB, Gandek B, Haley SM, Aaronson NK, et al. Comparison of Rasch and summated rating scales constructed from SF-36 physical functioning items in seven countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 120314.
  • 19
    Martin M, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Ware JE Jr, Maclean R, Li T. Item response theory methods can improve the measurement of physical function by combining the modified health assessment questionnaire and the SF-36 physical function scale. Qual Life Res 2007; 16: 64760.
  • 20
    Spratt KF. Patient-level minimal clinically important difference based on clinical judgment and minimally detectable measurement difference: a rationale for the SF-36 physical function scale in the SPORT intervertebral disc herniation cohort. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34: 172231.
  • 21
    Patrick DL, Deyo RA, Atlas SJ, Singer DE, Chapin A, Keller RB. Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995; 20: 1899908.
  • 22
    McHorney CA, Haley SM, Ware JE Jr. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning Scale (PF-10) II: comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 45161.
  • 23
    Fries JF, Spitz PW, Young DY. The dimensions of health outcomes: the health assessment questionnaire, disability and pain scales. 1982;9: 78993.
  • 24
    Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, Holman HR. Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1980; 23: 13745.
  • 25
    Schefte DB, Hetland ML. An open-source, self-explanatory touch screen in routine care: validity of filling in the Bath measures on Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, Function Index, the Health Assessment Questionnaire and Visual Analogue Scales in comparison with paper versions. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2010; 49: 99104.
  • 26
    Van der Heide A, Jacobs JW, van Albada-Kuipers GA, Kraaimaat FW, Geenen R, Bijlsma JW. Self report functional disability scores and the use of devices: two distinct aspects of physical function in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 1993; 52: 497502.
  • 27
    Tomlin GS, Holm MB, Rogers JC, Kwoh CK. Comparison of standard and alternative health assessment questionnaire scoring procedures for documenting functional outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1996; 23: 152430.
  • 28
    Wolfe F. Which HAQ is best? A comparison of the HAQ, MHAQ and RA-HAQ, a difficult 8 item HAQ (DHAQ), and a rescored 20 item HAQ (HAQ20): analyses in 2,491 rheumatoid arthritis patients following leflunomide initiation. J Rheumatol 2001; 28: 9829.
  • 29
    Krishnan E, Sokka T, Hakkinen A, Hubert H, Hannonen P. Normative values for the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index: benchmarking disability in the general population. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50: 95360.
  • 30
    Bruce B, Fries JF. The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire: a review of its history, issues, progress, and documentation. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 16778.
  • 31
    Wolfe F, Michaud K, Pincus T. Development and validation of the Health Assessment Questionnaire II: a revised version of the health assessment questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50: 3296305.
  • 32
    Fries JF, Cella D, Rose M, Krishnan E, Bruce B. Progress in assessing physical function in arthritis: PROMIS short forms and computerized adaptive testing. J Rheumatol 2009; 36: 20616.
  • 33
    Alvarez-Hernandez E, Pelaez-Ballestas I, Vazquez-Mellado J, Teran-Estrada L, Bernard-Medina AG, Espinoza J, et al. Validation of the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index in patients with gout. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 59: 6659.
  • 34
    Daltroy LH, Larson MG, Eaton HM, Phillips CB, Liang MH. Discrepancies between self-reported and observed physical function in the elderly: the influence of response shift and other factors. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 154961.
  • 35
    Van Groen MM, ten Klooster PM, Taal E, van de Laar MA, Glas CA. Application of the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index to various rheumatic diseases. Qual Life Res 2010; 19: 125563.
  • 36
    McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
  • 37
    Spilker B. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996.
  • 38
    Bruce B, Fries J. Longitudinal comparison of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Arthritis Rheum 2004; 51: 7307.
  • 39
    Liang MH, Larson MG, Cullen KE, Schwartz JA. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum 1985; 28: 5427.
  • 40
    Uhlig T, Haavardsholm EA, Kvien TK. Comparison of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and the modified HAQ (MHAQ) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006; 45: 4548.
  • 41
    Redelmeier DA, Lorig K. Assessing the clinical importance of symptomatic improvements: an illustration in rheumatology. Arch Intern Med 1993; 153: 133742.
  • 42
    Kosinski M, Zhao SZ, Dedhiya S, Osterhaus JT, Ware JE Jr. Determining minimally important changes in generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2000; 43: 147887.
  • 43
    Pope JE, Khanna D, Norrie D, Ouimet JM. The minimally important difference for the health assessment questionnaire in rheumatoid arthritis clinical practice is smaller than in randomized controlled trials. J Rheumatol 2009; 36: 2549.
  • 44
    Kwok T, Pope JE. Minimally important difference for patient-reported outcomes in psoriatic arthritis: Health Assessment Questionnaire and pain, fatigue, and global visual analog scales. J Rheumatol 2010; 37: 10248.
  • 45
    Colangelo KJ, Pope JE, Peschken C. The minimally important difference for patient reported outcomes in systemic lupus erythematosus including the HAQ-DI, pain, fatigue, and SF-36. J Rheumatol 2009; 36: 22317.
  • 46
    Wheaton L, Pope J. The minimally important difference for patient-reported outcomes in spondyloarthropathies including pain, fatigue, sleep, and Health Assessment Questionnaire. J Rheumatol 2010; 37: 81622.
  • 47
    Sekhon S, Pope J, Baron M. The minimally important difference in clinical practice for patient-centered outcomes including health assessment questionnaire, fatigue, pain, sleep, global visual analog scale, and SF-36 in scleroderma. J Rheumatol 2010; 37: 5918.
  • 48
    Pincus T, Summey JA, Soraci SA Jr, Wallston KA, Hummon NP. Assessment of patient satisfaction in activities of daily living using a modified Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum 1983; 26: 134653.
  • 49
    Blalock SJ, Sauter SV, Devellis RF. The modified Health Assessment Questionnaire difficulty scale: a health status measure revisited. Arthritis Care Res 1990; 3: 1828.
  • 50
    Arvidson NG, Larsson A, Larsen A. Simple function tests, but not the modified HAQ, correlate with radiological joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol 2002; 31: 14650.
  • 51
    Stucki G, Stucki S, Bruhlmann P, Michel BA. Ceiling effects of the Health Assessment Questionnaire and its modified version in some ambulatory rheumatoid arthritis patients. Ann Rheum Dis 1995; 54: 4615.
  • 52
    Ziebland S, Fitzpatrick R, Jenkinson C, Mowat A. Comparison of two approaches to measuring change in health status in rheumatoid arthritis: the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and modified HAQ. Ann Rheum Dis 1992; 51: 12025.
  • 53
    Katz P, for the Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals Outcomes Measures Task Force. Measures of adult general functional status. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 49: S1527.
  • 54
    Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW. Studies of illness in the aged. The Index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA 1963; 185: 9149.
  • 55
    Asberg KH, Sonn U. The cumulative structure of personal and instrumental ADL: a study of elderly people in a health service district. Scand J Rehabil Med 1989; 21: 1717.
  • 56
    Asberg KH, Nydevik I. Early prognosis of stroke outcome by means of Katz Index of activities of daily living. Scand J Rehabil Med 1991; 23: 18791.
  • 57
    Beloosesky Y, Grinblat J, Epelboym B, Weiss A, Grosman B, Hendel D. Functional gain of hip fracture patients in different cognitive and functional groups. Clin Rehabil 2002; 16: 3218.
  • 58
    Katz S, Akpom CA. A measure of primary sociobiological functions. Int J Health Serv 1976; 6: 493508.
  • 59
    Spector WD, Katz S, Murphy JB, Fulton JP. The hierarchical relationship between activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 4819.
  • 60
    Rodgers W, Miller B. A comparative analysis of ADL questions in surveys of older people. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 1997; 52 Spec No: 2136.
  • 61
    Reuben DB, Valle LA, Hays RD, Siu AL. Measuring physical function in community-dwelling older persons: a comparison of self-administered, interviewer-administered, and performance-based measures. J Am Geriatr Soc 1995; 43: 1723.
  • 62
    LaPlante MP. The classic measure of disability in activities of daily living is biased by age but an expanded IADL/ADL measure is not. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2010; 65: 72032.
  • 63
    Cabanero-Martinez MJ, Cabrero-Garcia J, Richart-Martinez M, Munoz-Mendoza CL. The Spanish versions of the Barthel index (BI) and the Katz index (KI) of activities of daily living (ADL): a structured review. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2009; 49: e7784.
  • 64
    Spector WD, Takada HA. Characteristics of nursing homes that affect resident outcomes. J Aging Health 1991; 3: 42754.
  • 65
    Brorsson B, Asberg KH. Katz index of independence in ADL: reliability and validity in short-term care. Scand J Rehabil Med 1984; 16: 12532.
  • 66
    Reijneveld SA, Spijker J, Dijkshoorn H. Katz' ADL index assessed functional performance of Turkish, Moroccan, and Dutch elderly. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 3828.
  • 67
    Rockwood K, Stolee P, Fox RA. Use of goal attainment scaling in measuring clinically important change in the frail elderly. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 11138.
  • 68
    Gresham GE, Phillips TF, Labi ML. ADL status in stroke: relative merits of three standard indexes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1980; 61: 3558.
  • 69
    Katz S, Downs TD, Cash HR, Grotz RC. Progress in development of the index of ADL. Gerontologist 1970; 10: 2030.
  • 70
    Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. Adv Clin Rehabil 1987; 1: 618.
  • 71
    Stineman MG, Shea JA, Jette A, Tassoni CJ, Ottenbacher KJ, Fiedler R, et al. The Functional Independence Measure: tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 11018.
  • 72
    Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J 1965; 14: 615.
  • 73
    Granger CV, Markello SJ, Graham JE, Deutsch A, Reistetter TA, Ottenbacher KJ. The uniform data system for medical rehabilitation: report of patients with lower limb joint replacement discharged from rehabilitation programs in 2000-2007. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 89: 78194.
  • 74
    Invernizzi M, Carda S, Milani P, Mattana F, Fletzer D, Iolascon G, et al. Development and validation of the Italian version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure III. Disabil Rehabil 2010; 32: 1194203.
  • 75
    Kucukdeveci AA, Yavuzer G, Elhan AH, Sonel B, Tennant A. Adaptation of the Functional Independence Measure for use in Turkey. Clin Rehabil 2001; 15: 3119.
  • 76
    Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fiedler RC. The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 122632.
  • 77
    Pollak N, Rheault W, Stoecker JL. Reliability and validity of the FIM for persons aged 80 years and above from a multilevel continuing care retirement community. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 105661.
  • 78
    Dodds TA, Martin DP, Stolov WC, Deyo RA. A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 74: 5316.
  • 79
    Hsueh IP, Lin JH, Jeng JS, Hsieh CL. Comparison of the psychometric characteristics of the functional independence measure, 5 item Barthel index, and 10 item Barthel index in patients with stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002; 73: 18890.
  • 80
    Sadaria KS, Bohannon RW, Lee N, Maljanian R. Ratings of physical function obtained by interview are legitimate for patients hospitalized after stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2001; 10: 7984.
  • 81
    Young Y, Fan MY, Hebel JR, Boult C. Concurrent validity of administering the functional independence measure (FIM) instrument by interview. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 88: 76670.
  • 82
    Heinemann AW, Linacre JM, Wright BD, Hamilton BB, Granger C. Relationships between impairment and physical disability as measured by the functional independence measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 74: 56673.
  • 83
    Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD, Granger CV, Hamilton BB. The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75: 12732.
  • 84
    Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD. Performance profiles of the functional independence measure. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 72: 849.
  • 85
    Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Freeman JA, Langdon DW, McLellan DL, Greenwood RJ, et al. Evidence-based measurement: which disability scale for neurologic rehabilitation? Neurology 2001; 57: 63944.
  • 86
    Gosman-Hedstrom G, Svensson E. Parallel reliability of the functional independence measure and the Barthel ADL index. Disabil Rehabil 2000; 22: 70215.
  • 87
    Tan WS, Heng BH, Chua KS, Chan KF. Factors predicting inpatient rehabilitation length of stay of acute stroke patients in Singapore. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90: 12027.
  • 88
    Inouye M, Kishi K, Ikeda Y, Takada M, Katoh J, Iwahashi M, et al. Prediction of functional outcome after stroke rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 79: 5138.
  • 89
    Heinemann AW, Linacre JM, Wright BD, Hamilton BB, Granger C. Prediction of rehabilitation outcomes with disability measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75: 13343.
  • 90
    Koyama T, Sako Y, Konta M, Domen K. Poststroke discharge destination: functional independence and sociodemographic factors in urban Japan. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2011; 20: 2027.
  • 91
    Ng YS, Jung H, Tay SS, Bok CW, Chiong Y, Lim PA. Results from a prospective acute inpatient rehabilitation database: clinical characteristics and functional outcomes using the Functional Independence Measure. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2007; 36: 310.
  • 92
    Black TM, Soltis T, Bartlett C. Using the Functional Independence Measure instrument to predict stroke rehabilitation outcomes. Rehabil Nurs 1999; 24: 10914, 121.
  • 93
    Lutz BJ. Determinants of discharge destination for stroke patients. Rehabil Nurs 2004; 29: 15463.
  • 94
    Alexander MP. Stroke rehabilitation outcome: a potential use of predictive variables to establish levels of care. Stroke 1994; 25: 12834.
  • 95
    Gulati A, Yeo CJ, Cooney AD, McLean AN, Fraser MH, Allan DB. Functional outcome and discharge destination in elderly patients with spinal cord injuries. Spinal Cord 2011; 49: 2158.
  • 96
    Van der Putten JJ, Hobart JC, Freeman JA, Thompson AJ. Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel index and the Functional Independence Measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999; 66: 4804.
  • 97
    Davidoff GN, Roth EJ, Haughton JS, Ardner MS. Cognitive dysfunction in spinal cord injury patients: sensitivity of the Functional Independence Measure subscales vs neuropsychologic assessment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1990; 71: 3269.
  • 98
    Hall KM, Cohen ME, Wright J, Call M, Werner P. Characteristics of the Functional Independence Measure in traumatic spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80: 14716.
  • 99
    Kohler F, Dickson H, Redmond H, Estell J, Connolly C. Agreement of functional independence measure item scores in patients transferred from one rehabilitation setting to another. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2009; 45: 47985.
  • 100
    Wallace D, Duncan PW, Lai SM. Comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the motor component of the Functional Independence Measure in stroke: the impact of using different methods for measuring responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 9228.
  • 101
    Beninato M, Gill-Body KM, Salles S, Stark PC, Black-Schaffer RM, Stein J. Determination of the minimal clinically important difference in the FIM instrument in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 87: 329.
  • 102
    Jette AM, McDonough CM, Ni P, Haley SM, Hambleton RK, Olarsch S, et al. A functional difficulty and functional pain instrument for hip and knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Res Ther 2009; 11: R107.
  • 103
    Jette AM, Haley SM. Contemporary measurement techniques for rehabilitation outcomes assessment. J Rehabil Med 2005; 37: 33945.
  • 104
    Cella D, Gershon R, Lai JS, Choi S. The future of outcomes measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment. Qual Life Res 2007; 16 Suppl 1: 13341.
  • 105
    Raju NS, Price LR, Oshima TC, Nering ML. Standardized conditional SEM: a case for conditional reliability. Appl Psychol Meas 2007; 31: 16980.