Shah and Cooper, in their ‘Commentary’ (BJOT February 1993), state that ‘rehabilitation workers can feel confident in advocating the use of the BI, as modified by Shah et al in 1989, as the preferred measure of ADL’. The evidence they present in their commentary fails to support this assertion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ShahSCooperB. Commentary on ‘A critical evaluation of the Barthel Index’. Br J Occup Ther1993; 56(2): 70–72.
2.
ShahSVanclayFCooperB. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol1989; 42: 703–709.
3.
GrangerCVAlbrechtGLHamiltonBB. Outcome of comprehensive medical rehabilitation: Measurement by the PULSES Profile and the Barthel Index. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1979; 60: 145–51.
4.
FortinskyRHGrangerCVSeltzerGB. The use of functional assessment in understanding home care needs. Med Care1981; 19: 489–97.
5.
CollinCDavisSHorneVWadeDT. Reliability of the Barthel Index. Int J Rehabil Res1987; 10: 356–57.
6.
MahoneyFIBarthelDW. Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Md State Med J1965; 14: 61–65.
7.
StreinerDLNormanGR. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
8.
BruettTLOversRP. A critical review of 12 ADL scales. Phys Ther1969; 49: 857–62.
9.
GaitoJ.Measurement scales and statistics: Resurgence of an old misconception. Psychol Bull1980; 87: 564–67.
10.
WrightRDStoneMH. Best test design. Chicago: MESA Press, 1979.
11.
MurdockCA. A critical evaluation of the Barthel Index, part 1. Br J Occup Ther1992; 55(3): 109–11.
12.
MurdockCA. A critical evaluation of the Barthel Index, part 2. Br J Occup Ther1992; 55(4): 153–56.
