This is the second of two articles providing a critical evaluation of the Barthel Index as a measure of activities of daily living. Part 2 reviews evidence of the test's standardisation, validity and reliability. It also discusses the usefulness of the test for an occupational therapist in clinical practice and stresses the need for standardised assessment within the profession.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MahoneyFIBarthelDW. Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Maryland State Med J1965; 14: 61–65.
2.
LawMLettsL. A critical review of scales of ADL. Am J Occup Ther1989; 43(8): 522–28.
3.
GrangerCVDevisLSPetersNCSherwoodCCBarrettJE. Stroke rehabilitation: Analysis of repeated Barthel Index measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1979; 60: 15–17.
4.
WadeDTSkilbeckCEHewerRL. Predicting Barthel ADL score at 6 months after an acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1980; 61: 355–58.
5.
EakinP. Problems with assessments of ADL. Br J Occup Ther1989; 52(2): 50–53.
6.
SelmanMBarnittR. Measuring disability by means of ADL indices. Br J Occup Ther1983: 46(8): 225–27.
7.
GreshamGEPhillipsTFLabiMLC. ADL status in stroke: Relative merits of three standard indexes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1980; 61: 355–58.
8.
HemphillBJ. Mental health assessment in occupational therapy: An integrative approach to the education process. USA: Stock, 1988.
9.
McGinnisGESewardMLDejongGOsbergVS. Program evaluation of physical medicine and rehabilitation departments using self-report Barthel. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1986; 67: 123–25.
