Objective: To translate, to test inter-rater and intra-rater reliability and concurrent validity of the Basic Care Needs (BCN) section of the Northwick Park Dependency Score (NPDS).
Design: Test–retest reliability and validity testing. Observed data were collected by the staff (nursing staff, occupational therapists).
Setting: Three rehabilitation units.
Subjects: Forty inpatients between 16 and 65 years of age with brain injury were included.
Main measures: Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability was calculated by percentage agreement (PA) and unweighted kappa measure. Concurrent validity was examined by computing Goodman–Kruskal's gamma, a nonparametric statistic for degree of association between the BCN score and the total score of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM).
Results: Inter-rater reliability showed a good percentage agreement between nursing staff. Between nursing staff and occupational therapists the percentage agreement was lower especially in one item. Intra-rater reliability showed a good percentage agreement for all assessors. Concordance was good with a gamma 0.83 and an asymptotic error (ase) of 0.04, for nursing staff and for occupational therapists — 0.87, ase 0.04.
Conclusion: The BCN section of NPDS was found to be inter-rater and intra-rater reliable, to have concurrent validity. Further studies are needed on clinical utility. The instrument can be used for assessment of dependency for individual patients with brain injury, and information when transferring between different caregivers. Further studies need to investigate the sensitivity of the instrument.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1 Mackay L. Benefits of a formalized traumatic brain injury program within a trauma centre. J Head Trauma Rehabil1994; 9:11–19.
2.
2 Naredi S. Cerebral circulation and the sympathetic nervous system: in patients with traumatic hemorrage. Thesis, Göteborg University, 2000.
3.
3 Teasell R. Stroke recovery and rehabilitation. Stroke2003; 34: 365–366.
4.
4 Sonn U. Longitudinal studies of dependency in daily life activities among the elderly: methodological developments, use of assitive devices and relation to impairments and functional limitations. Thesis, Göteborg University, 1995.
5.
5 Katz S, Ford A, Moskowitz R, Jackson B, Jaffe M. Studies of illness in the age: the index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and social function. JAMA1963; 185: 914–919.
6.
6 Wade DT, Collin C. The Barthel ADL Index: a standard measure of physical disability?Int Disabil Stud1988; 10:64–67.
7.
7 Hamilton B, Granger C, Sherwin F, Zielenzy M, Tashman J. A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer M ed. Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurement. Baltimore: Brooker Publishing, 1987: 134–147.
8.
8 Grimby G, Gudjonsson G, Rodhe M, Sunnerhagen KS, Sundh V, Ostensson ML. The functional independence measure in Sweden: experience for outcome measurement in rehabilitation medicine. Scand J Rehabil Med1996; 28:51–62.
9.
9 Rappaport M, Dougherty AM, Kelting DL. Evaluation of coma and vegetative states. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1992; 73: 628–634.
10.
10 Turner-Stokes L, Tonge P, Nyein K, Hunter M, Nielson S, Robinson I. The Northwick Park Dependency Score (NPDS): a measure of nursing dependency in rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil1998; 12: 304–318.
11.
11 Streiner D, Norman G. Health measurement scales–a practical guide to their development and use, second edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
12.
12 Svensson E. Analyses of systematic and random differences between paired ordinal categorical data. Thesis, Göteborg University, 1993.
13.
13 Svensson E. Concordance between ratings using different scales for the same variable. Stat Med2000; 19: 3483–3496.
14.
14 Fisher AG. Functional measures, Part 2: Selecting the right test, minimizing the limitations. Am J Occup Ther1992; 46: 278–281.
15.
15 Post MW, Visser-Meily JM, Gispen LS. Measuring nursing needs of stroke patients in clinical rehabilitation: a comparison of validity and sensitivity to change between the Northwick Park Dependency Score and the Barthel Index. Clin Rehabil2002; 16: 182–189.
16.
16 Hatfield A, Hunt S, Wade DT. The Northwick Park Dependency Score and its relationship to nursing hours in neurological rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med2003; 35: 116–120.
17.
17 Eaking P. Problems with assessment of activities of daily living. Br J Occup Ther1989; 52:50–54.
18.
18 French S. Practical research: a guide for therapists. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1998.
19.
19 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.
