Objective: To develop a self-rating Barthel Index questionnaire (SB) for assessing stroke patients living at home, the test-retest reliability of SB versions 1 and 2 and the inter-method reliability of SB version 3 were examined.
Design: Case series.
Setting: Clinics of the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine at the University Hospital and two affiliated hospitals.
Patients: Thirty-one, 140 and 65 chronic stroke patients living at home, being seen for regular follow-up, and having no severe aphasia for SB versions 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
Main outcome measure: Kappa coefficients of items in SB versions 1 and 2 for test-retest reliability; intra-class correlation coefficients of the self-care index, mobility index and total score, kappa coefficients of items and Friedman's two-way ANOVAs of ranking in SB version 3 among the self-ratings, family ratings and occupational therapist (OT) ratings; a regression analysis of age, gender, duration, time for filling in the SB, OT ratings, Mini-Mental State score and aphasia.
Results: Kappa coefficients in SB version 2 were higher than those in version 1. Intra-class correlation coefficients in SB version 3 among the three ratings were good, and kappa coefficients in each item were also good or excellent. By Friedman's two-way ANOVA, all the items except walking up/down stairs had no significant difference in ranking. Regression analysis revealed that OT ratings and time for filling in the SB affected the absolute difference of scores between the self-ratings and OT ratings.
Conclusion: SB version 3 is sufficiently reliable for practical use.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Mahoney FI, Barthel DWFunctional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J1965; 14: 61-65.
2.
Granger CV, Albrecht GL, Hamilton BBOutcome of comprehensive medical rehabilitation: measurement by PULSES profile and the Barthel index. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1979; 60: 145-54.
3.
Wade DT, Langton-Hewer R.Functional abilities after stroke: measurement, natural history and prognosis . J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1987; 50: 177-82.
4.
Wade DT, Legh-Smith J., Langton-Hewer R.Social activities after stroke: measurement and natural history using the Frenchay Activities Index. Int Rehabil Med1985; 7: 176-81.
5.
Adams RJ, Meador KJ, Sethi KD, Grotta JC, Thomson DSGraded neurologic scale for use in acute hemispheric stroke treatment protocols . Stroke1987; 18: 665-69.
6.
Wylie CM, White BKA measure of disability. Arch Environ Health1964; 8: 834-39.
7.
Shinar D., Gross CR, Bronstein KS et al. Reliability of the activities of daily living scale and its use in telephone interview. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1987; 68: 723-28.
8.
Roy CW, Tognneri J., Hay E., Pentland B.An inter-rater reliability study of the Barthel index. Int J Rehabil Res1988; 11: 67-70.
9.
Katz S., Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MWStudies of illness in the ages: the Index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA1963; 185: 914-19.
10.
Gresham GE, Phillips TF, Labi Mlc.ADL status in stroke: relative merits of three standard indexes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1980; 61: 355-58.
11.
Shah S., Vanclay F., Cooper B.Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel index for stroke rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol1989; 42: 703-9.
12.
Korner-Biensky N., Wood-Dauphinee S.Barthel index information elicited over the telephone: is it reliable? Am J Phys Rehabil1995; 74: 9-18.
13.
Yeo D., Faleiro R., Lincoln NBBarthel ADL index: a comparison of administration methods. Clin Rehabil1995; 9: 34-39.
14.
McGinnis GE , Seward ML, DeJong G., Osberg JSProgram evaluation of physical medicine and rehabilitation departments using self-report Barthel. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1986; 67: 123-25.
15.
Gompertz P. , Pound P., Ebrahim S.A postal version of the Barthel Index. Clin Rehabil1994; 8: 233-39.
16.
Tanaka S., Ogata H., Hachisuka K.Community rehabilitation system: studies on physical training for disabled in Kitakyushu. Sangyo Ika Daigaku Zasshi1990 ; 12: 369-72.
17.
Choen J.A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Measure1960; 20: 37-46.
18.
Folstein MF , Folstein SE, McHugh PRMini-mental state: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res1975; 12: 189-98.
19.
Hasegawa T. , Kishi H., Shigeno K., Tanemura J., Kusunoki T.Three-dimensional structure in language tests of aphasia. Folia Phoniatr (Basel) 1985; 37: 246-58.
20.
Fleiss JLMeasuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull1971; 76: 378-82.
21.
Bartko JJ, Carpenter WTOn the methods and theory of reliability. J Nerv Ment Dis1976; 163: 307-17.
22.
Collin C., Wade D., Davies S., Horne V.The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud1987; 10: 61-63.
23.
Wade DTPersonal physical disability. In: Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1992.
