Objective: To assess the responsiveness to change and validity of three established outcome measures in relation to early lower limb vascular amputee rehabilitation: the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys Scale (OPCS) and the Amputee Activity Score (AAS).
Design: Prospective observational study. Setting: Inpatient amputee rehabilitation unit. Subjects: Fifty-one consecutive patients admitted for rehabilitation following lower limb amputation for vascular disease.
Procedure: To study the responsiveness to change differences between total scores and between subsection scores at different times were analysed. To assess validity, comparisons of the total scores of the measures were made with each other, and the total scores for each measure were compared with other outcomes.
Results: Complete scores were obtained on 34 subjects. All measures showed significant change between admission and discharge (p < 0.00001) but only the AAS showed change between discharge and follow-up (p < 0.0001). Subsection analysis revealed expected improvements in mobility. During the inpatient stage progress was also detected in certain activities of daily living in the FIM and OPCS. The measures correlated with each other (p < 0.001). All of the measures’ admission scores correlated with duration of stay (OPCS p < 0.005, AAS p < 0.006, FIM p < 0.009) and admission OPCS also correlated with discharge placement (p < 0.036).
Conclusion: The FIM and OPCS are suitable for the inpatient stage but the AAS would appear to be the best measure at time of discharge and thereafter, and further studies are justified.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Pernot HFM, de Witte LP, Lindeman E, Cluitmans J. Daily functioning of the lower extremity amputee: an overview of the literature. Clin Rehabil1997; 11: 93–106.
2.
Grise M-C, Gauthier-Gagnon C, Martineau GG. Prosthetic profile of people with lower extremity amputation: conception and design of a follow-up questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1993; 12: 862–870.
3.
Turner-Stokes L, Turner-Stokes T. The use of standardized outcome measures in rehabilitation centres in the UK. Clin Rehabil1997; 11: 306–313.
4.
Hunter J, Prescott R, Boyd L, Williams L. A multi centre study of disability indices. A report to Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust. Rehabilitation Studies Unit, University of Edinburgh, 1996.
5.
Stineman MG, Shea JA, Jette A et al. The Functional Independence Measure: tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across diverse impairment categories. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1996; 77: 1101–1108.
6.
Dodds TA, Marin DP, Stolov WC, Deyo RA. A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1993; 74: 531–536.
7.
Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fiedler RC. The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1996; 77: 1226–1232.
8.
Hamilton BB, Laughlin JA, Fiedler RC, Granger CV. Interrater reliability of the level functional independence measure (FIM). Scand J Rehabil Med1994; 26: 115–119.
9.
Van der Putten JJ, Hobart JC, Freeman JA, Thompson AJ. Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1999; 66: 480–484.
10.
McPherson KM, Pentland B. Disability in patients following traumatic brain injury – which measure?Int J Rehabil Res1997; 20: 1–10.
11.
Wellwood I, Dennis MS, Warlow CP. A comparison of the Barthel Index and the OPCS disability instrument used to measure outcome after acute stroke. Age Ageing1995; 24: 54–57.
12.
McPherson K, Sloan RL, Hunter J, Dowell CM. Validation studies of the OPCS scale – more useful than the Barthel index?Clin Rehabil1993; 7: 105–112.
13.
Day HJB. The assessment and description of amputee activity. Prosthet Orthot Int1981; 17: 23–28.
14.
Standardised assessment scales for elderly people. A Report of Joint Workshops of the Research Unit of the Royal College of Physicians and the British Geriatrics Society, London. Royal College of Physicians of London, 1992.
15.
Treweek SP, Condie EM. Three measures of functional outcome for lower limb amputees: a retrospective review. Prosthet Orthot Int1998; 22: 178–185.
16.
Siegel S, John Castellan Jr, Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988.
17.
Grey N, Kennedy P. The Functional Independence Measure: a comparative study of clinician and self ratings. Paraplegia1993; 31: 457–461.
18.
Chang WC, Slaughter S, Cartwright D, Chan C. Evaluating the FONE FIM: Part construct validity. J Outcome Meas1997; 1: 192–198.
19.
Chang WC, Slaughter S, Cartwright D, Chan C. Evaluating the FONE FIM: Part II concurrent validity and influencing factors. J Outcome Meas1997; 1: 259–285.
20.
Davidoff GN, Roth EJ, Haughton JS, Ardner MS. Cognitive dysfunction in spinal cord injury patients: sensitivity of the Functional Independence Measure subscales v. neuropsychologic assessment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1990; 71: 326–329.
21.
Kelly S, Jessop EG. A comparison of measures of disability and health status in people with physical disabilities undergoing vocational rehabilitation. J Public Health Med1996; 18: 169–174.
