Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRoorda, L.D.
dc.contributor.authorGreen, J.R.
dc.contributor.authorHouwink, A.
dc.contributor.authorBagley, Pamela J.
dc.contributor.authorSmith, J.
dc.contributor.authorMolenaar, I.W.
dc.contributor.authorGeurts, A.C.
dc.date.accessioned2014-04-28T11:18:22Z
dc.date.available2014-04-28T11:18:22Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.citationRoorda, L. D., Green, J. R., Houwink, A., Bagley, P. J., Smith, J., Molenaar, I. W., Geurts, A. C. (2012) Item hierarchy-based analysis of the Rivermead Mobility Index resulted in improved interpretation and enabled faster scoring in patients undergoing rehabilitation after stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93 (6), 1091-1096.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10454/6163
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: To enable improved interpretation of the total score and faster scoring of the Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) by studying item ordering or hierarchy and formulating start-and-stop rules in patients after stroke. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Rehabilitation center in the Netherlands; stroke rehabilitation units and the community in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Item hierarchy of the RMI was studied in an initial group of patients (n=620; mean age +/- SD, 69.2+/-12.5y; 297 [48%] men; 304 [49%] left hemisphere lesion, and 269 [43%] right hemisphere lesion), and the adequacy of the item hierarchy-based start-and-stop rules was checked in a second group of patients (n=237; mean age +/- SD, 60.0+/-11.3y; 139 [59%] men; 103 [44%] left hemisphere lesion, and 93 [39%] right hemisphere lesion) undergoing rehabilitation after stroke. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mokken scale analysis was used to investigate the fit of the double monotonicity model, indicating hierarchical item ordering. The percentages of patients with a difference between the RMI total score and the scores based on the start-and-stop rules were calculated to check the adequacy of these rules. RESULTS: The RMI had good fit of the double monotonicity model (coefficient H(T)=.87). The interpretation of the total score improved. Item hierarchy-based start-and-stop rules were formulated. The percentages of patients with a difference between the RMI total score and the score based on the recommended start-and-stop rules were 3% and 5%, respectively. Ten of the original 15 items had to be scored after applying the start-and-stop rules. CONCLUSIONS: Item hierarchy was established, enabling improved interpretation and faster scoring of the RMI.
dc.relation.isreferencedbyhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2011.12.021
dc.subjectActivities of daily living
dc.subjectAge factors
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectAged, 80 and over
dc.subjectCohort studies
dc.subjectDisability evaluation
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMiddle aged
dc.subjectMobility limitation
dc.subjectNetherlands
dc.subjectOutcome assessment (health care)
dc.subjectPrognosis
dc.subjectPsychometrics
dc.subjectRecovery of function
dc.subjectRehabilitation centers
dc.subjectRisk assessment
dc.subjectSeverity of illness index
dc.subjectSex factors
dc.subjectSocioeconomic factors
dc.subjectStroke
dc.subjectTask performance and analysis
dc.subjectTime factors
dc.subjectREF 2014
dc.titleItem hierarchy-based analysis of the Rivermead Mobility Index resulted in improved interpretation and enabled faster scoring in patients undergoing rehabilitation after stroke
dc.typeArticle


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record