Objective: To establish whether a Barthel score derived by translation from the motor items of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) would equate to the directly scored measure.
Design: Conversion criteria for motor item scores on the FIM scale to Barthel scores were first developed. To test these criteria, 40 consecutive patients were assessed for Barthel and FIM scores by the multidisciplinary team who were unaware of the conversion criteria. The derived Barthel score was compared with the directly scored Barthel Index.
Results: A very high degree of correlation was observed between total scores of the direct and derived Barthel (Spearman's rho = 0.99), which is highly significant, and no significant differences were seen between scores for any of the individual items (Wilcoxon signed rank test). Item by item analysis across the study population was undertaken to confirm the conversion criteria. Absolute agreement between the two methods ranged from 75 to 100% and kappa values from 0.53 to 1.0.
Conclusions: This study demonstrates that a Barthel Index can be derived from the motor items of the FIM and there is a good agreement with the directly assessed Barthel score. Although a larger study may help to delineate the exact conversion criteria for one item, the current system provides an accurate and usable translation of the total score and serves as a major step towards achieving a common language in outcome measurement for rehabilitation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Turner-Stokes L, Turner-Stokes T. The use of standardised 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.
Collin C, Wade DT, Davis S, Horne V. The Barthel Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Studies1988; 10: 61–63.
4.
Wade DT, Langton Hewer R. Functional abilities after stroke: measurement, natural history and prognosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1987; 50: 177–182.
5.
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.
6.
Kidd D, Stewart G, Baldry J et al. The Functional Independence Measure: a comparative validity and reliability study. Disabil Rehabil1995; 17: 10–14.
7.
Hamilton BB, Laughlin JA, Fiedler RC, Granger CV. Interrater reliability of the 7-level Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Scand J Rehabil Med1994; 26: 115–119.
8.
Guide for the Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation (Adult FIM) Version 4.0. Buffalo, NY: Center for Functional Assessment Research and Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation, 1993.
9.
Fleiss JL. The measurement of interrater agreement. In: Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley, 1981:212–236.
