Objective: To investigate whether Shah, Vanclay and Cooper's modification of the Barthel Index improved its sensitivity to change.
Design: Correlational study.
Setting: School of Occupational Therapy at Auckland Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Subjects: One hundred subjects requiring rehabilitation following a stroke.
Main outcome measures: Change in function which was measured using Shah, Vanclay and Cooper's (1989) modified Barthel Index and walking speed over 10 metres.
Results: Five statistical analyses were undertaken, none of which demonstrated clear superiority of one measure over the other.
Conclusions: The study did not indicate the modified Barthel Index to be more sensitive to change than the 20-point Barthel Index for this population. The statistical analysis strategies utilized are recommended for similar studies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL. Health status measures: Strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther1996; 76: 1109–1123.
2.
Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Controlled Clin Trials1991; 12: 142S–158S.
3.
May L. The challenge of measuring change: Responsiveness of outcome measurements. Can J Rehabil1997; 10: 15–24.
4.
Wade DT. Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
5.
Allen CMC, Harrison MJG, Wade DT. The management of acute stroke. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988.
6.
McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
7.
Mahoney RI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Md State Med J1965; 14: 61–65.
8.
Granger C, Albrecht G, Hamilton B. Outcome of comprehensive medical rehabilitation: measurement by PULSES profile and the Barthel Index. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1979; 60: 145–154.
9.
Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiology1989; 42: 703–709.
10.
Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Predicting discharge status at commencement of stroke rehabilitation. Stroke1989; 20: 766–769.
11.
Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Stroke rehabilitation: Australian patient profile and functional outcome. J Clin Epidemiology1991; 44: 21–28.
12.
Shah S, Cooper B, Maas F. The Barthel Index and ADL evaluation in stroke rehabilitation in Australia, Japan, the UK and the USA. Aust Occup Ther J1992; 39: 5–13.
13.
Bakheit AMO, Harries SR, Hull RG. Validity of a self-administered version of the Barthel Index in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rehabil1995; 9: 234–237.
14.
Bakheit AMO, Harries SR, Hull RG. A comparison between the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire and the Barthel Index in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Occup Ther1995; 58: 253–254.
15.
Cole B, Finch E, Gowland C, Mayo N, Basmajian J (eds) Physical rehabilitation outcome measures. Toronto, Ontario, Canadian Physiotherapy Association, 1994.
16.
Eakin P, Baird H. The Community Dependency Index: a standardised assessment of need and measure of outcome for community occupational therapy. Br J Occup Ther1995; 58: 17–22.
17.
Hachisuka K, Ogata H, Ohkuma H, Tanaka S, Dozono K. Test–retest and inter-method reliability of the self-rating Barthel Index. Clin Rehabil1997; 11: 28–35.
18.
Novak S, Johnson J, Greenwood R. Barthel revisited: Making guidelines work. Clin Rehabil1996; 10: 128–134.
19.
Tennant A, Geddes, JML, Chamberlain, MA. The Barthel Index: An ordinal score or interval level measure?Clin Rehabil1996; 10: 301–308.
20.
Chua KSG, Kong K. Functional outcome in brain stem stroke patients after rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1996; 77: 194–197.
21.
Fricke J, Unsworth, CA. Inter-rater reliability of the original and modified Barthel Index, and a comparison with the Functional Independence Measure. Aust Occup Ther J1996; 43: 22–29.
22.
Baskett JJ, Broad J, Reekie G, Hocking C, Green G. Shared responsibility for ongoing rehabilitation: a new approach to home based therapy after stroke. In press
23.
Salisich GB, Mueller, MJ. Relationship between measures of function, strength and walking speed in patients with diabetes and transmetatarsal amputation. Clin Rehabil1997; 11: 60–67.
24.
Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR, Nathan J, Piehl-Baker L. Clinical gait assessment in the neurologically impaired. Reliability and meaningfulness. Phys Ther1984; 64: 35–40.
25.
Potter JM, Evans AL, Duncan G. Gait speed and activities of daily living function in geriatric patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1995; 76: 997–999.
26.
Friedman PJ, Richmond DE, Baskett JJ. A prospective trial of serial gait speed as a measure of rehabilitation in the elderly. Age Ageing1988; 17: 227–235.
27.
Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis1986; 39: 897–906.
28.
Wade DT, Skilbeck CE, Hewer RL. Predicting Barthel ADL score at 6 months after an acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1983; 64: 24–28.
