This article reports on the development and initial implementation of a self-report outcomes measurement instrument. The instrument, tested with veterans in programs at four Veterans Administration Blind Rehabilitation Centers, provided assessments of their functioning on 32 personal and social activities at the beginning and near the end of their programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrandtE. N., & PopeA. M., (Eds.). (1997). Enabling America: Assessing the role of rehabilitation science and engineering.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
2.
CrewsJ. E. (1991). Measuring rehabilitation outcomes and the public policies of aging and blindness. In WeberN. D. (Ed.), Vision and aging: Issues in social work practice (pp. 137–152). New York: Haworth Press.
3.
CrewsJ. E., & LongR. G. (1997). Conceptual and methodological issues in rehabilitation outcomes for adults who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 91, 117–130.
4.
DittmarS. S., & GreshamG. E. (Eds.). (1997). Functional assessment and outcome measures for the rehabilitation health professional.Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
5.
GrangerC. V., & HamiltonB. B. (1994). The uniform data system for medical rehabilitation report of first admissions for 1992. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73, 51–55.
6.
HorowitzA., & ReinardtJ. P. (1998). Development of the Adaptation to Age-related Vision Loss Scale. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 92, 30–41.
7.
LandrumP. K., SchmidtN. D., & McLeanA. (Eds.). (1995). Outcome oriented rehabilitation: Principles, strategies and tools for effective program management.Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
8.
LongR. G., CrewsJ. E., & MancilR. (1995). FIMBA: Functional Independence Measure for Blind Adults. Final report.Decatur, GA: Rehabilitation Research and Development Center, VA Medical Center-Atlanta.
9.
MangioneC. M., BerryS., SpritzerK., JanzN. K., KleinR., OwsleyC., & LeeP. P. (1998). Identifying the content area for the 51-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: Results from focus groups with visually impaired persons. Archives of Ophthalmology, 116, 227–233.
10.
MangioneC. M., LeeP. P., PittsJ., GutierrezP., BerryS., & HaysR. D. (1998). Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ): NEI-VFQ Field Test. Archives of Ophthalmology, 116, 1496–504.
11.
MangioneC. M., PhillipsR. S., SeddonJ. M., LawrenceM. G., CookE. F., DaileyR., & GoldmanL. (1992). Development of the Activities of Daily Vision Scale: A measure of functional visual status. Medical Care, 30, 1111–1126.
12.
NieuwenhuijsenE. R., FreyW. D., & CrewsJ. E. (1991). Measuring small gains using the ICIDH severity of disability scale: Assessment practice among older people who are blind. International Disability Studies, 13, 29–33.
13.
RubensteinL. Z., JosephsonK. R., WielandD., EnglishP. A., SayreJ. A., & KaneR. L. (1984). Effectiveness of a geriatric evaluation unit. New England Journal of Medicine, 311, 1664–1670.
14.
ShortellS. M., ZimmermanJ. E., GilliesR. R., DuffyJ., DeversK. J., RousseauD. M., & KnausW. A. (1992). Continuously improving patient care: Practical lessons and an assessment tool from the National ICU Study. Quality Review Bulletin, 18, 150–155.
15.
World Health Organization. (1980). International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps.Geneva: Author.
16.
World Health Organization. (1999). ICIDH-2: International Classification of Functioning and Disability Beta-02 draft for field trials.Geneva: Author.
