Objective: To establish the reliability of an interview approach to the Functional Independence Measure (FIM).
Design: Two raters were present at the same time during the interviews in the home and did independent ratings of the 18 FIM items. The interview procedure was repeated within a week by another two raters in the clinic.
Subjects: Sixty-three stroke survivors (median age 63 years, range 18–71 years) were studied approximately two years after onset.
Raters: Three occupational therapists and one nurse.
Methods: Reliability was calculated as unweighted kappa statistics, percentage agreement (PA), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
Results: Best agreement was found in the motor items of FIM. The kappa statistics showed good to excellent inter-rater values during the same interview except for the Social interaction item. The ICCs based on sum-score for motor (0.92) and social–cognitive items (0.75) respectively, were similar to those reported in the literature. The repeated interview by different raters showed less stable agreement according to kappa values for the items dealing with transfers, locomotion and social–cognition.
Conclusions: FIM assessments showed high inter-rater agreement for the same interview setting (home as well as clinic), but the stability of the measure over time with a repeated interview by different raters was somewhat less satisfactory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Hamilton BB, Granger CV. A uniform national system for medical rehabilitation. In: Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurement. Baltimore: Brookes, 1987: 137–147.
2.
Guide for the Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation (adult FIM), version 4.0(Swedish version 1994). Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo, 1993.
3.
Wade DT. Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
4.
Svensson E. Analysis of systematic and random differences between paired ordinal categorical data. Thesis, Department of Mathematical Statistics, Göteborg University, 1993.
5.
Polit D, Hungler B. Reliability, Validity and other criteria for assessing measuring tools. In: Nursing research, principles and methods, second edn.Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1983.
6.
Nachmias C, Nachmias D. Measurement: In: Research methods in the social science, second edn.New York: St Martins Press, 1981.
7.
Johnston MV, Keith RA, Hinderer SR. Measurement standards for inter-disciplinary medical rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1992; 73: S3–S23.
8.
Hamilton BB, Laughlin JA. Inter-rater reliability of the 7-level Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Scand J Rehabil Med1994; 26: 115–119.
9.
Ottenbacher KJ, William C. Inter-rater agreement and stability of functional assessment in the community-based elderly. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1994; 75:1297–1301.
10.
Pollak N, Rheault W. Reliability and validity of the FIM for persons aged 80 years and above from a multilevel continuing care retirement community. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1996; 77:1056–1061.
11.
Segal ME, Ditunno MD. Inter-institutional agreement of individual Functional Independence Measure (FIM) items measured at two sites on one sample of SCI patients. Paraplegia1993; 31: 622–631
12.
Smith PM, Illig SB et al. Inter-modal agreement of follow-up telephone functional assessment using the Functional Independence Measure in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1996; 77: 431–435.
13.
Brosseau L, Wolfson C. Inter-rater reliability and construct validity of the Functional Independence Measure for multiple sclerosis subjects. Clin Rehabil1994; 8: 107–115.
14.
Fricke J, Unsworth C. Reliability of the Functional Independence Measure with occupational therapists. Aust Occup Ther J1993; 40: 7–15.
15.
Jaworsky DM, Kult T. The Functional Independence Measure: a pilot study comparison of observed and reported ratings. Rehabil Nurs Res1994; 3: 141–147.
16.
Ottenbacher K.J.Hsu Y.Granger C.V.Fiedler R.C.The reliability of the Functional Independence Measure: A quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1996; 77: 1226–1232.
17.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet1986; February8: 307–310.
18.
Sheikh K. Disability scales; assessment of reliability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1986; 67: 245–249.
19.
Bartko JJ, Carpenter WT. On the methods and theory of reliability. J Nerv Ment Dis1976; 163: 307–317.
20.
Cohen JA. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas1960; 20: 37–46.
McPherson, KM, Pentland B, Cudmore SF, Prescott RJ. An inter-rater reliability study of the Functional Assessment Measure (FIM+FAM). Disabil Rehabil1996; 18: 341–347.
23.
Chang WC, Slaughter S, Cartwright D et al. Evaluating the phone FIM: part I: construct validity. J Outcome Meas1997; 1(3): 193–218.
24.
Chang WC, Chan C. Evaluating the phone FIM: part II. Concurrent validity and influencing factors. J Outcome Meas1997; 1(4): 259–285.
25.
Grimby G, Andren E, Daving Y, Wright B. Dependence and perceived difficulty in daily activities in community-living stroke survivors 2 years after stroke: a study of instrumental structures. Stroke1998; 29: 1843–1849.
26.
Fleiss JL. The measurement of inter-rater agreement In: Statistical methods for rates and proportion, second edn.New York: Wiley, 1981.
27.
Kazdin AE. Artefact, bias and complexity of assessment: the ABCs of reliability. J Appl Behav Anal1977; 10: 141–150.
28.
Brennan P, Silman A. Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures. BMJ1992; 304: 1491–1494.
29.
Svensson E, Starmark J-E, Ekholm S, von Essen C, Johansson A. Analysis of inter-observer disagreement in the assessment of subarachnoid blood and acute hydrocephalus on CT scans. Neurol Res1996; 18: 487–494.
30.
Donaghy S, Wass PJ. Inter-rater reliability of the Functional Assessment Measure in a brain injury rehabilitation program. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1998; 79: 1231–1236.
31.
Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa I: the problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol1990; 43: 551–558.
32.
Chau N, Daler S. Inter-rater agreement of two functional independence scales: The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and a subjective uniform continuous scale. Disabil Rehabil1994; 16: 63–67.
