Objectives: To investigate whether a nonclinical research assistant, using standardized scoring criteria, can reliably administer the Barthel Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Index in a sample of elderly inpatients.
Design: Paired comparison of nurse and nonclinical research assistant Barthel Index assessments.
Setting: Acute hospital wards from two hospitals in a UK Healthcare Trust, with a catchment population of approximately 224 000 people.
Methods: A consecutive sample of 94 elderly patients with a variety of medical problems.
Main outcome measures: Barthel ADL Index, Folstein Mini-Mental Status Examination.
Results: Whilst the inter-rater reliability of the Barthel Index was within acceptable boundaries, two items out of ten had only fair agreement and low crude agreement (transfer and dressing) on Cohen's kappa scores.
Conclusions: Depending on the differences observed in any particular context, the Barthel Index can be applied with reasonable reliability by nonclinical staff applying the standardized scoring criteria. It should be noted, however, that the kappa coefficients between clinical and nonclinical assessors tend to be lower than those found when comparing two clinically trained assessors in previous research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J1965; 14: 61–65.
2.
Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Horn V. The Barthel ADL Index. A reliability study. Int Disabil Stud1988; 10: 61–63.
3.
Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol1989; 42: 703–709.
4.
Granger CV, Albrecht GL, Hamilton BB. Outcome of comprehensive medical rehabilitation: measurement by PULSES profile and Barthel Index. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1979; 60: 145–154.
5.
Dickinson E, Brocklehurst J. Evolution of a programme of health services and development in the health care of elderly people. J R Coll Physicians (Lond)1994; 28(5): 424–427.
6.
Parker SG, Du X, Bardsley MJ et al. Measuring outcomes in care of the elderly. J R Coll Physicians (Lond)1994; 28(5): 428–433.
7.
Ranhoff AH, Laake K. The Barthel ADL Index: scoring by the physician from patient interview is not reliable. Age Ageing1993; 22: 171–174.
8.
Wyller TB, Sveen U, Bautz-Holter E. The Barthel ADL Index one year after stroke: Comparison between relatives' and occupational therapist's scores. Age Ageing1995; 24: 398–401.
9.
Loewen SC, Anderson BA. Reliability of the Modified Motor Assessment Scale and the Barthel Index. Phys Ther1988; 68(7): 1077–1081.
10.
Bakheit AMO, Harries SR, Hill RG. Validity of a self-administered version of the Barthel Index in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rehabil1995; 9: 234–237.
11.
Korner-Bitensky N, Wood-Dauphinee S. Barthel index information elicited over the telephone: Is it reliable?Am J Phys Med Rehabil1995; 74(1): 9–18.
12.
Shinar D, Gross CR, Bronstein KS et al. Reliability of the activities of daily living scale and its use in telephone interviews. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1987; 68: 723–728.
13.
Edwards M, Feightner J, Goldsmith CH. Inter-rater reliability of assessments administered by individuals with and without a background in health care. Occup Ther J Res1995; 15(2): 103–110.
14.
Richards SH, Coast J, Gunnell DJ, Peters TJ, Pounsford JC, Darlow MA. A randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and acceptability of an early discharge hospital at home scheme with acute hospital care. BMJ1998; 316: 1796–1801.
15.
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys: Social Survey Division. General household survey: results from the 1994 general household survey. London: HMSO, 1994.
16.
Folstein MF, Folstein SE. Mini-Mental State A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res1975; 12: 189–198.
17.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet1986: 307–310.
18.
Fleiss JL. The measure of inter-rater agreement. In: Statistical methods for rates and proportions, second edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981: 212–237.
19.
Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall, 1991.
