Turner-Stokes L, Turner-Stokes T. The use of standardized outcome measures in rehabilitation centres in the UK. Clin Rehabil1997; 11: 306–313.
2.
Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J1965; 14: 61–65.
3.
Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Sherwin FS, Zielezny M, Tashman JS. A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer JM ed. Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurement. Baltimore: Brookes, 1987: 137–147.
4.
Hall KM, Hamilton BB, Gordon WA, Zasler ND. Characteristics and comparisons of functional assessment indices: Disability Rating Scale, Functional Independence Measure and Functional Assessment Measure. J Head Trauma Rehabil1993; 8: 60–74.
5.
Alcott D, Dixon K, Swann R. The reliability of the items of the functional assessment measure (FAM): Differences in abstractness between FAM items. Disabil Rehabil1997; 19: 355–358.
6.
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.
7.
McPherson K, Berry A, Pentland B. Relationships between cognitive impairments and functional performance after brain injury, as measured by the functional assessment measure (FIM + FAM). Neuropsychol Rehabil1997; 7: 241–257.
8.
Hall KM, Mann N, High WM, Jr., Wright J, Kreutzer JS, Wood D. Functional measures after traumatic brain injury: Ceiling effects of FIM, FIM+FAM, DRS, and CIQ. J Head Trauma Rehabil1996; 11: 27–39.
9.
Turner-Stokes L. Outcome measures for in-patient neurorehabilitation settings – a commentary. Neuropsychol Rehabil1999; in press.
10.
Nyein K, McMichael L, Turner-Stokes L. Can a Barthel score be derived from the FIM?Clin Rehabil1999; 13: 56–63.