• 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.