Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective:

The aim of this study was to validate a novel pictorial-based Longshi Scale for evaluating a patient’s disability by healthcare professionals and non-professionals.

Design:

Prospective study.

Setting:

Rehabilitation departments from a grade A, class 3 public hospital, a grade B, class 2 public hospital, and a private hospital and seven community rehabilitation centers.

Subjects:

A total of 618 patients and 251 patients with functional disabilities were recruited in a two-phase study, respectively.

Main measures:

Outcome measure: pictorial scale of activities of daily living (ADLs, Longshi Scale). Reference measure: Barthel Index. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to analyze the validity of Longshi Scale against Barthel Index.

Results:

In phase 1 study, from March 2016 to August 2016, the results demonstrated that the Longshi Scale was both reliable and valid (intraclass correlation coefficient based on two-way random effect (ICC_2,1) = 0.877–0.974 for intra-rater reliability; ICC_2,1 = 0.928–0.979; κ = 0.679–1.000 for inter-rater reliability; intraclass correlation coefficient based on one-way random effect (ICC_1,1) = 0.921–0.984 for test–retest reliability and Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.836–0.899). In the second phase, in March 2018, results further demonstrated that the Longshi Scale had good inter-rater and intra-rater reliability among healthcare professionals and non-professionals including therapists, interns, and personal care aids (ICC_1,1 = 0.822–0.882 on Day 1; ICC_1,1 = 0.842–0.899 on Day 7 for inter-rater reliability). In addition, the Longshi Scale decreased assessment time significantly, compared with the Barthel Index assessment (P < 0.01).

Conclusion:

The Longshi Scale could potentially provide an efficient way for healthcare professionals and non-professionals who may have minimal training to assess the ADLs of functionally disabled patients.

Keywords

Activities of daily living functional disability evaluation pictorial-based scale Longshi Scale Barthel Index

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

The Information and External Relations Division of UNFPA. The state of world population 2011. New York: United Nations Population Fund, 2011, p.ii+.

World Health Organization (WHO). World report on disability. Malta: WHO, 2011.

Wang

YL.

Function assessment rehabilitation program. Beijing, China: People’s Medical Publishing House, 2013.

Mahoney

Barthel

DW.

Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Maryland State Medical Journal 1965; 14: 61–65.

Linacre

Heinemann

Wright

et al. The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75(2): 127–132.

World Health Organization (WHO). World Health Organization disability assessment schedule (WHODAS). Geneva: WHO, 2001.

Hadjistavropoulos

Herr

Prkachin

et al. Pain assessment in elderly adults with dementia. Lancet Neurol 2014; 13(12): 1216–1227.

Le May

Ballard

Khadra

et al. Comparison of the psychometric properties of 3 pain scales used in the pediatric emergency department: Visual Analogue Scale, Faces Pain Scale-Revised, and Colour Analogue Scale. Pain 2018; 159(8): 1508–1517.

Akena

Joska

Musisi

et al. Sensitivity and specificity of a visual depression screening instrument among HIV-positive individuals in Uganda, an area with low literacy. AIDS Behav 2012; 16(8): 2399–2406.

10.

Akena

Joska

Stein

DJ.

Sensitivity and specificity of the Akena Visual Depression Inventory (AViDI-18) in Kampala (Uganda) and Cape Town (South Africa). Br J Psychiatry 2018; 212(5): 301–307.

11.

Puertas

Patel

Marshall

Are visual measures of mood superior to questionnaire measures in non-Western settings. Soc Psych Psych Epid 2004; 39(8): 662–666.

12.

Granger

Dewis

Peters

et al. Stroke rehabilitation: analysis of repeated Barthel index measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1979; 60(1): 14–17.

13.

Wang

Guo

SS.

The main screening index for disabled for reflecting daily life activity. Chinese J Rehabil Theory Pract 2015; 21: 1333–1338.

14.

Collin

Wade

Davies

et al. The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud 1988; 10(2): 61–63.

15.

Kwon

Hartzema

Duncan

et al. Disability measures in stroke: relationship among the Barthel Index, the Functional Independence Measure, and the Modified Rankin Scale. Stroke 2004; 35(4): 918–923.

16.

Sainsbury

Seebass

Bansal

et al. Reliability of the Barthel Index when used with older people. Age Ageing 2005; 34(3): 228–232.

17.

Thieme

Ritschel

Zange

Reliability and validity of the functional gait assessment (German version) in subacute stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90(9): 1565–1570.

18.

Hobart

Lamping

Freeman

et al. Evidence-based measurement: which disability scale for neurologic rehabilitation? Neurology 2001; 57(4): 639–644.

19.

Wrisley

Marchetti

Kuharsky

et al. Reliability, internal consistency, and validity of data obtained with the functional gait assessment. Phys Ther 2004; 84(10): 906–918.

20.

Brouwer

Kuijer

Dijkstra

et al. Reliability and stability of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire: intra class correlation and limits of agreement. Disabil Rehabil 2004; 26(3): 162–165.

21.

McHorney

Ware

Jr Lu

et al. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 1994; 32(1): 40–66.

22.

Eisen

Ware

Jr Donald

et al. Measuring components of children’s health status. Medical Care 1979; 17(9): 902–921.

23.

Leung

Chan

Shah

Development of a Chinese version of the Modified Barthel Index—validity and reliability. Clin Rehabil 2007; 21(10): 912–922.

24.

Rosner

Fundamental of biostatistics. Toronto, ON, Canada: Duxbury Press, 1995.

25.

Duffy

Gajree

Langhorne

et al. Reliability (inter-rater agreement) of the Barthel Index for assessment of stroke survivors: systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke 2013; 44(2): 462–468.

26.

Hsueh

Lin

Jeng

et al. 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(2): 188–190.

27.

Quinn

Dawson

Walters

et al. Reliability of the modified Rankin Scale: a systematic review. Stroke 2009; 40(10): 3393–3395.

28.

Fricke

Unsworth

CA.

Inter-rater reliability of the original and modified Barthel Index, and a comparison with the Functional Independence Measure. Aust Occup Ther J 2010; 44(1): 22–29.

29.

Fricke

Measuring outcomes in rehabilitation: a review. Br J Occup Ther 1993; 56: 217–221.

30.

Oveisgharan

Shirani

Ghorbani

et al. Barthel index in a Middle-East country: translation, validity and reliability. Cerebrovasc Dis 2006; 22(5–6): 350–354.

31.

Chen

et al. A pilot study for reliability and validity of mini-physical performance test for Chinese male elders. Int J Gerontol 2012; 6: 16–19.

32.

Holmes

Shea

JA.

Performance of a new, HIV/AIDS-targeted quality of life (HAT-QoL) instrument in asymptomatic seropositive individuals. Qual Life Res 1997; 6(6): 561–571.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.78 MB

User testing of the psychometric properties of pictorial-based disability assessment Longshi Scale by healthcare professionals and non-professionals: a Chinese study in Shenzhen