An investigation into the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of Spinal Cord Independence Measure III (SCIM III)

Abstract

Objective:

To investigate the validity and reliability of a Chinese version of Spinal Cord Independence Measure III (SCIM III) in individuals with spinal cord injury.

Design:

Study on psychometric properties.

Setting:

An inpatient rehabilitation facility in China.

Subjects:

102 participants with spinal cord injury. Mean (SD) age was 48.8 (15.6) years; tetraplegia/paraplegia ratio was 50/52; median time post injury was 2 months.

Intervention:

SCIM III was translated into Chinese. Chinese versions of Barthel Index and SCIM III were filled out for each participant by Rater 1. SCIM III was then administered by Rater 2 after 24 hours (n = 67) and 7 days (n = 65).

Main Measures:

Validity, inter-rater/test-retest reliability, and internal consistency of the Chinese version of SCIM III.

Results:

The total scores between the two raters were similar (mean ± SD: 33.8 ± 25.8 vs 33.8 ± 25.5, P = 0.95). Total agreement between the raters in each item was >80%, with both Pearson and intraclass correlation coefficients >0.97 (P < 0.01) for each subscale and total score. The Pearson correlation coefficients of the two independent assessments performed by Rater 2 were also >0.97 (P < 0.01) for each subscale and the total score. Cronbach α was >0.7 for each subscale and the total score for both raters. High consistency was found between Barthel Index and SCIM III total scores (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.88, P < 0.01).

Conclusion:

The Chinese version of SCIM III is valid and reliable for the functional assessment of patients with SCI.

Keywords

Spinal cord injury Spinal Cord Independence Measure translation validity reliability

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Catz

Itzkovich

Agranov

, et al. SCIM–spinal cord independence measure: a new disability scale for patients with spinal cord lesions. Spinal Cord 1997; 35(12):850–856.

Catz

Itzkovich

Tesio

, et al. A multicenter international study on the spinal cord independence measure, version III: Rasch psychometric validation. Spinal Cord 2007; 45(4): 275–291.

Anderson

Acuff

Arp

, et al. United States (US) multi-center study to assess the validity and reliability of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM III). Spinal Cord 2011; 49(8): 880–885.

Bluvshtein

Front

Itzkovich

, et al. SCIM III is reliable and valid in a separate analysis for traumatic spinal cord lesions. Spinal Cord 2011; 49(2): 292–296.

Itzkovich

Gelernter

Biering-Sorensen

, et al. The Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) version III: reliability and validity in a multi-center international study. Disabil Rehabil 2007; 29(24): 1926–1933.

Invernizzi

Carda

Milani

, et al. Development and validation of the Italian version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure III. Disabil Rehabil 2010; 32(14): 1194–1203.

Michailidou

Marston

De Souza

LH.

Translation into Greek and initial validity and reliability testing of a modified version of the SCIM III, in both English and Greek, for self-use. Disabil Rehabil 2016; 38(2): 180–188.

Riberto

Tavares

Rimoli

, et al. Validation of the Brazilian version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure III. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2014; 72(6): 439–444.

Unalan

Misirlioglu

Erhan

, et al. Validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of Spinal Cord Independence Measure-III. Spinal Cord 2015; 53(6): 455–460.

10.

Wannapakhe

Saensook

Keawjoho

, et al. Reliability and discriminative ability of the spinal cord independence measure III (Thai version). Spinal Cord 2016; 54(3): 213–220.

11.

Zarco-Periñan

Barrera-Chacón

García-Obrero

, et al. Development of the Spanish version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure version III: cross-cultural adaptation and reliability and validity study. Disabil Rehabil 2014; 36(19): 1644–1651.

12.

Kumar

Khushboo Panwar

, et al. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of spinal cord independence measure version III in Hindi language. Ann Indian Acad Neurol 2020; 23(1): 98–102.

13.

Cho

Shin

Kim

, et al. Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure-III (KSCIM-III). Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2020; 99(4): 305–309.

14.

Liu

Xing

Zhou

, et al. Lack of knowledge and training are the major obstacles in application of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) in China. J Spinal Cord Med 2019; 42(4): 437–443.

15.

Sun

Liu

, et al. The validity and reliability of Chinese version of spinal cord independence measure III. Chin J Rehabil Med 2012; 27(6): 529–532 (in Chinese).

16.

Biering-Sørensen

Alexander

Burns

, et al. Recommendations for translation and reliability testing of international spinal cord injury data sets. Spinal Cord 2011; 49(3): 357–360.

17.

Kottner

Audigé

Brorson

, et al. Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64(1): 96–106.

18.

Hobart

Cano

Warner

, et al. What sample sizes for reliability and validity studies in neurology? J Neurol 2012; 259(12): 2681–2694.

19.

Hou

Zhang

, et al. Study on reliability and validity of Chinese version of Barthel Index. Clin Focus 2012; 27(3): 219–221 (in Chinese).

20.

McGraw

Wong

SP.

Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods 1996; 1(1): 30–46.

21.

De Vet

HCW

Terwee

Knol

, et al. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 1033–1039.

22.

Landis

Koch

GG.

The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33(1): 159–174.

23.

Tavakol

Dennick

Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ 2011; 2: 53–55.

24.

Catz

Itzkovich

Steinberg

, et al. The Catz-Itzkovich SCIM: a revised version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure. Disabil Rehabil 2001; 23(6): 263–268.

25.

Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. The FIM® instrument: its background, structure, and usefulness. Buffalo: UDSMR, 2012.

26.

Fricke

Unsworth

Inter-rater reliability of the original and modified Barthel Index, and a comparison with the Functional Independence Measure. Aust Occup Ther J 1997; 44(1): 22–29.

27.

Plantinga

Tiesinga

van der Schans

, et al. The criterion-related validity of the Northwick Park Dependency Score as a generic nursing dependency instrument for different rehabilitation patient groups. Clin Rehabil 2006; 20(10): 921–926.

28.

Morganti

Scivoletto

Ditunno

, et al. Walking index for spinal cord injury (WISCI): criterion validation. Spinal Cord 2005; 43(1): 27–33.

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

0.30 MB