Contemporary measurement techniques for rehabilitation outcomes assessment.

Health and Disability Research Institute, Boston University, 53 Bay State Road, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine (Impact Factor: 1.9). 12/2005; 37(6):339-45. DOI: 10.1080/16501970500302793
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In this article, we review the limitations of traditional rehabilitation functional outcome instruments currently in use within the rehabilitation field to assess Activity and Participation domains as defined by the International Classification of Function, Disability, and Health. These include a narrow scope of functional outcomes, data incompatibility across instruments, and the precision vs feasibility dilemma. Following this, we illustrate how contemporary measurement techniques, such as item response theory methods combined with computer adaptive testing methodology, can be applied in rehabilitation to design functional outcome instruments that are comprehensive in scope, accurate, allow for compatibility across instruments, and are sensitive to clinically important change without sacrificing their feasibility. Finally, we present some of the pressing challenges that need to be overcome to provide effective dissemination and training assistance to ensure that current and future generations of rehabilitation professionals are familiar with and skilled in the application of contemporary outcomes measurement.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Best practice physical activity guidelines for older adults recommend multicomponent physical activity programs that incorporate behavioral change strategies and a safe design. This review examined research implementing best practice interventions and their impact on activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) for community-dwelling older adults. Of the 15 studies identified, all reported gains in at least 1 outcome, but few incorporated all features of best practice. Only 1 study evaluated ADL/IADL performance. More research implementing best practice physical activity guidelines and targeting ADL/IADL performance is indicated to understand the impact of such programs on everyday living.
    Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation 01/2013; 29(1):67-76. DOI:10.1097/TGR.0b013e3182780813 · 0.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In partnership with six Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs), the current study focused on the feasibility of recruiting a representative sample of residents and then assessing their functional health. With our guidance, each of the six CCRCs recruited a volunteer (V-Group) and random (R-Group) sample of independent living residents. We provided face-to-face training and ongoing remote electronic support to the CCRC staff on the testing battery and the web-based data entry system. The testing battery was consisted of demographic, physical function, and psychosocial assessments. After training, CCRC staff were receptive to the study goals and successfully used the data entry website. In the V-Group (N=189), 76% were already participating in CCRC wellness programs. We attempted to recruit a random, unbiased (R-Group) sample of 20% (n=105) of eligible residents; however, only 30 consented to be tested and 70% of this group (21/30) was also already participating in a wellness program. Mean age of all participants was 82.9 years. The V-Group had a higher Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) total score (least squares mean[SE], 9.4[0.2] vs 8.2[0.4], p=0.014) and SPPB gait speed component score (3.5[0.1] vs 3.0[0.2], p=0.007) and spent more time doing moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (300[21] vs 163[49] min/week, p=0.013) compared to the R-Group. While it is feasible to recruit, assess and transmit data on residents' functional health in partnership with CCRCs, population validity was severely compromised. Attention needs to be given to the development of more effective methods to recruit less interested residents. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Contemporary Clinical Trials 12/2014; 40. DOI:10.1016/j.cct.2014.12.003 · 1.99 Impact Factor
  • American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation / Association of Academic Physiatrists 08/2014; 93(10). DOI:10.1097/PHM.0000000000000167 · 2.01 Impact Factor


1 Download
Available from