(1994). Jennett B, Bond M. Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage. et al, 2014) The aim of this study was to explore the validity of the Cognitive Behavioral Rating Sale ( CBRS) with the FIM discharge data on 100 patients, mean age of 72.2 (± 10.9) years old and 61.0 (±61.2) days post-stroke. Since COVID 19 and its effects are relatively new for all of us, it is important to documents properly and show progression/lack of, demonstrated by the patients receiving physical therapy for COVID 19 related complications. Study design: Multicenter, prospective, longitudinal cohort study. SCIM III and Strength and Capacity Correlations (Spearman’s correlation coefficients): UEMS = upper extremity muscle score 
MMT = manual muscle testing, BOLD = Adequate to Excellent Correlations, The SCIM was developed with input provided by health care providers (Catz et al, 2001), (Ackerman, et al. Donaghy, S. and Wass, P. J. Find it on PubMed. Find it on PubMed, Heinemann, A. W., Linacre, J. M., et al. Comments from StrokEdge Task Force Members, The FIM instrument must be administered by a trained and certified evaluator and ideally scored by consensus with a multi-disciplinary team. "Measuring patient-reported outcomes after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation settings." Thus, data from 340 patients involved in post stroke rehabilitation were fitted to a Rasch model. Difficult items on motor portion of the scale discriminated better among higher functioning patients, Raw FIM scores (as opposed to score subjected to Rasch analysis) may underestimate change, Simple 2-factor model of the FIM instrument may not be sufficient to describe disability following stroke (66% of variance), May not adequately measure within patient change whereas a 3-factor model (self-care, cognition and elimination) accounted for more variance (74.2%), Minimal ceiling effect: 16% achieved ceiling on FIM Motor Subscale during inpatient rehabilitation, No floor or ceiling effects at either time using the FIM instrument, Minimal floor effect at admission to inpatient rehab (5.8%) and at discharge from inpatient rehab (3.5%), No ceiling effect at admission to inpatient rehab (0%) and at discharge from inpatient rehab (0%), A comparison of simultaneous performance of the WISCI and the LFIM indicated 1 FIM level per multiple WISCI levels, 56% of the variance of FIM scores 2 years post injury is accounted for with ASIA admission light touch scores with age being the next largest contributing factor, FIM – Locomotion item was rated as Valid/Useful by 6%, Useful But Requires Validation or Changes by36% , and Not Useful or Valid for Research in SCI by 58%. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 80(2): 121-125; quiz 126, 146. Spinal Cord 37(1): 58-61. "Stroke-specific FIM models in an urban population." (Y/N), Is additional research warranted for this tool (Y/N), An Italian version of the SCIM III has been validated with excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91), excellent interrater reliability (r = 0.99), and excellent correlation with the FIM (r = 0.80-0.82) (Invernizzi, et al., 2010). (Lundgren-Nilsson, 2006), “The FIM instrument does not contain key activity or participation elements of patient recovery important for measuring outcome and burden of illness (e.g., return to work, relationships, social and recreational pastimes, etc. Initially reviewed by the Rehabilitation Measures Team; Updated by Eileen Tseng, PT, DPT, NCS, Rachel Tappan, PT, NCS, and the SCI EDGE task force of the Neurology Section of the APTA in 2012; Updated by Tammie Keller, PT, DPT, MS and the TBI EDGE task force of the Neurology Section of the APTA; Updated by Dev Kegelmeyer, PT, DPT, MS, GCS and the PD EDGE task force of the neurology section of the APTA in 2013. La scala FIM (Functional International Measure) è una scala internazionale di misura dell'autosufficienza in medicina riabilitativa e nell'area socio-assistenziale che si occupa di censire 18 attività della vita quotidiana (13 motorio-sfinteriche e 5 cognitive).. . Long WB, LSacco WJ, Coombes SS et al. "Agreement of functional independence measure item scores in patients transferred from one rehabilitation setting to another." Find it on PubMed, Catz, A., Itzkovich, M., et al. (1986). Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 44(1): 3-11. Objective. Naghdi, S., et al. Find it on PubMed, Hobart, J. C., Lamping, D. L., et al. Adv Clin Rehabil. (Kucukdeveci, 2013) One hundred and eighty-eight community dwelling participants (mean age 63.1 ±12 years), a median of 27 (range 3-240) months post-stroke were evaluated on the FIM and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS-II). "A multicenter international study on the Spinal Cord Independence Measure, version III: Rasch psychometric validation." Adequate correlations with the Mini Mental Status Examination [MMSE] and the Frontal Assessment Battery [FAB] ( 0.60 and 0.58) but a floor effect with the Catherine Bergego Scale [CBS]. You could not without help going later than book collection or library or borrowing from your contacts to retrieve them. Find it on PubMed. (Yang et al, 2013). Objectives: The characteristics of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) were examined for spinal cord injury (SCI) in regard to norms over time by level and completeness of injury, differential benefit of motor and cognition subscales, and "ceiling effect" after rehabilitation discharge. "Reliability of the Catz-Itzkovich Spinal Cord Independence Measure assessment by interview and comparison with observation." This page categorises all pages related to outcome measures. "Upper extremity function in persons with tetraplegia: relationships between strength, capacity, and the spinal cord independence measure." (2006). B., Carnel, C. T., et al. J Rehabil Med 42(7): p. 609-13.Find it in PubMed, Sasaki, T., et al. Excellent convergent validity was found between the LIMOS and the FIM (r=0.89; P<0.0001), An excellent association was reported between the FIM mobility subscale and the LIMOS mobility subscale (r=0.90; P<0.0001), Adequate to excellant associations were found between the subscales of the LIMOS (self care, general tasks, domestic life) and the subscales of the FIM (r=0.36-0.79), (Dromerick et al, 2003; n = 95, Acute Stroke). 1:6-18. . FIM™ is comprised of 18 items, grouped into 2 subscales - motor and cognition. The functional ability of a patient changes during rehabilitation and the FIM™ instrument is used to track those changes. (1998). No instrument (including the FIM) assessed all of the commonly affected cognitive domains after a stroke, Strong significant intercorrelations were found between the Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment (LOTCA), the MMSE and the FIM-Cognitive subscale. 1-7. 2014 Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the Cognitive Behavioral Rating Scale for stroke patients. Spinal Cord 45(4): 275-291. Tasks are rated on a 7 point ordinal scale that ranges from total assistance (or complete dependence) to complete independence. Find it on PubMed. Measurement Properties Validity – Low to High High correlation with SCI Spasticity Evaluation Tool (SCI-SET): r = -0.66 Moderate correlation with Quality of Life Index (QLI) Health & Functioning Subscale: r = -0.46 Low correlation with Functional Independence Measure (FIM) Motor Subscale: r = -0.05 Il suo elemento principale è la scala FIM®. A significant relationship was found between the FIM-Motor and the Clock Drawing Test (Exp (B) = 0.984, p = 0.030). Find it on PubMed, Salter, K., et al. 2004; n = 359; mean age = 80.8 (4.7) years; time between stroke onset and admission = 22.3 (14.6) days, Acute Stroke). This scale included four components of the ICF:1). The level of participation on discharge (PRPS score) was predicted by functional status on admission (FIM; 0.309), cognitive impairment (Elderly Cognitive Assessment Questionnaire-ECAQ; 0.249) and fatigue (Fatigue Severity Scale-FSS; -0.304) . "Use of item response analysis to investigate measurement properties and clinical validity of data for the dynamic gait index." Spinal Cord 35(1): 22-25. Find it on PubMed, Saboe, L. A., Darrah, J. M., et al. . “Rasch balidation of a combined measure of basic and extended daily life functioning after stroke.” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 27(2):125-132. Spinal Cord 43(1): 27-33. Find it on PubMed, Lundgren-Nilsson, Å., Tennant, A., et al. The total functional independence measure score, the functional independence measure motor subscore, and the case-mix group were equally the strongest predictors for any of the primary outcomes. The final model contained the following variables: age, initial physical grade, initial cognitive stage, renal failure, nutritional compromise, type of rehabilitation services, and recovery time between admission and discharge assessments. Find it on PubMed, Hall, K. M., Bushnik, T., et al. Phys Ther 93(12): p. 1592-602Find it on PubMed. With more than 500 measures and supported by some of the world's best doctors, clinicians, therapists, and physical medicine and rehabilitation researchers, the Rehabilitation Measures Database (RMD) is the go-to resource for benchmarks and outcomes. (Montecchi et al, 2013) In 59 patients with mean age of 48.90 (± 14.01) years old, admitted to the intensive care unit acutely post acquired brain injury (from trauma, hypoxia, haemorrhage or ischemia), a new Trunk Recovery Scale (TRS) was developed. Ellis, T., Katz, D. I., et al. (2004). "Perceived causes of change in function and quality of life for people with long duration spinal cord injury." (2011). Ottiger, B., et al. Spinal Cord 35(12): 850-856. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 78(6): 644-650. 2005, N=284 patients (184M, 100F), mean age: 50.4±19.3 (2007). Find it on PubMed, Jackson, A. (Lundgren-Nilsson, 2006; Kucukdeveci A, 2001), Subjective reports of pain (15.5%) and loss of strength (17.9%) were most frequently identified as causes of change in FIM instrument activities and quality of life for individuals with chronic SCI (Price et al. 5 cognitive items) to obtain the average ratings on the 1 to 7 scale, Mean Motor FIM Scores at Rehabilitation Admission and Discharge by Level and Completeness of Injury, *All cases with level and completeness data available; These are not all the same sample of individuals across admission and discharge, (Kay et al, 2010; n = 1780; discharged from one of 479 inpatient rehab facilities in US; age 65-74 years; diagnosed with incomplete paraplegia, Acute SCI), Demographic, rehabilitation stay, and discharge FIM self-care and mobility subscore by etiology of incomplete paraplegia, (Grey and Kennedy, 1993; n = 40; mean age at time of injury = 29.6 (9.57) years; mean time post-injury at discharge = 24.75 (8.57) weeks, Chronic SCI), (Karamehmetoglu et al, 1997; n = 50; mean age = 33.94; 22% with tetraplegia and 78% with paraplegia, SCI), (Kucukdeveci et al, 2001; FIM in Turkey; n = 62; mean age = 32.7; mean time since injury = 16.4 months; with cervical injury 21%; with thoracic injury 42%; with lumbar 37%, Chronic SCI), (Segal et al, 1993, n = 57, discharging from acute care and admitting to rehab hospital; data collected within a max of 6 days, Subacute SCI), (Kucukdeveci et al, 2001; FIM instrument version in Turkey, Chronic SCI), (Stineman et al, 1996; with nontraumatic SCI, n = 2,609, mean age = 64.6 years; with traumatic SCI, n = 1,831, mean age = 43.0 years, sample from Uniformed Data System for Medical Rehabilitation [UDSMRSM], SCI), (Ditunno, et al., 2007; n = 141, mean age = 32 years; Entered into study within 8 weeks of onset of SCI; data taken at entry, 3 and 6 and 12 months, subjects required to have score of < 4 on the Locomotor FIM (LFIM) at entry, Acute SCI), (Donnelly et al, 2004; n = 41; mean age = 49(118.1); mean time since injury = 52 (73.1) days; with paraplegia, n = 18; with tetraplegia, n = 20; Incomplete, n = 27; complete, n = 11, SCI), (Fujiwara et al, 1999; n = 14; C6 level of injury, mean age = 30.7 years; mean length of time from injury = 462.0 days, Chronic SCI), (Saboe et al, 1997; n = 160; mean age = 30 (13) years; assessed at admission, discharge, and 2 years post injury; Length of stay at tertiary care hospital 144 (111) days Chronic SCI), (Yavuz et al, 1998; n = 29; mean age = 37 years; mean time between onset and rehab admission = 20 weeks, mean length of stay in inpatient rehab = 18 weeks, Subacute SCI). Spinal Cord 48(5): 380-387. (2001). "Is the outcome in acute spinal cord ischaemia different from that in traumatic spinal cord injury? Find it on PubMed, Brock, K. A., Goldie, P. A., et al. et al, 2015). 1-844-355-ABLE. A short measure of balance in multiple sclerosis: validation through Rasch analisys. Find it on PubMed. Determining normative standards for Functional Independence Measure transitions in rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 21(6): 539-550. Find it on PubMed, Lawton, G., Lundgren-Nilsson, Å., et al. (Y/N), Students should be exposed to tool? A sample of 371,211 Medicare beneficiaries who were receiving services in an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) within 60 days post stroke (> 65 years of age, 43.7% male, 41.7% right sided impairment, 796% white) were evaluated with the FIM at admission and discharge. Find it on PubMed. The Conistat, Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MOCA] and Functional Independence Measure-Cognitive showed adequate predictive validity. (2011). Adequate to Excellent convergent validity was found. "A psychometric analysis of the Needs Assessment Checklist (NAC)." Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 40(1): 1-8. We have reviewed nearly 300 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others. (2007). Various Diagnoses (meta analytic findings): (Ottenbacher et al, 1996; n = 11 studies published between 1993 and 1995; total sample size = 1,568 participants, Various Diagnoses), (Sharrack et al, 1999; n = 64; mean age = 40 years, MS), (Dodds et al, 1993; n = 11,102 (52% Stroke, 10% Orthopedic; 10% Brain Injury); mean age = 65 years, General Rehab), (Hobart et al, 2001; Neurological Disorders), (Ng, et al., 2007; n= 1502; mean age of total = 61.3 ± 15.0 years; mean acute LOS = 14.5 ± 17.5 days; mean inpatient rehab LOS = 21.5 ±19.0 days, Neurological Disorders), (Hobart et al, 2001; n = 169; neurological rehab patient: MS, stroke, TBI, other), (Coster et al, 2006; n = 516 subjects with neurologic, orthopedic, or complex medical conditions; mean age = 68.3 (14.97) years; discharged from tertiary care or rehab hospital, Rehabilitation Patients), (Coster et al, 2006; Rehabilitation Patients), Bates, B.E., Xie, D., et al. The objectives of the study were to compare the association and responsiveness of the functional autonomy measurement system (SMAF) and functional independence measure (FIM) as outcome measures addressing functional independence in stroke patients involved in an intensive rehabilitation program and to compare their relationships with a social participation measure after rehabilitation … "Influence of admission functional status on functional change after stroke rehabilitation." Find it on PubMed. The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) is an 18-item measurement tool that explores an individual's physical, psychological and social function. "Reliability and validity of the FIM for persons aged 80 years and above from a multilevel continuing care retirement community." Montecchi, M.G., et al.,(2013) Trunk Recovery Scale: a new tool to measure posture control in patients with severe acquired brain injury. Once treatment has commenced, the same instrument can be used to determine progress and treatment efficacy. (1997). Functional Independence Measure score code N Health, Standard 18/12/2019 Tasmanian Health, Endorsed 06/05/2020. The adjusted R2 was 0.173 (p = 0.000) for M-FIM gain and the significant factors were the admission M-FIM (B = 0.809, SE = 0.199, β = -0.446, p = 0.000) and if the patient had diabetes Mellitus (B = 14.269, SE = 6.775, β = -0.177, p = 0.037). Find it on PubMed, Price, G. L., Kendall, M., et al. "SCIM III is reliable and valid in a separate analysis for traumatic spinal cord lesions." Find it on PubMed, Shindo, K., et al. These categories focus on various functional mobility … “The reliability and validity of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS-II) in stroke.” Disability & Rehabilitation 35(3): 214-220. The FIM Motor Scale had high/excellent reliability (test-retest and inter-rater reliability) and high/excellent validity (>0.75) However, the FIM Motor Scale had only moderate responsiveness (0.4-0.74), with chronic stroke survivors with severe impairments (persisting beyond 6 months) demonstrating little change on the FIM Motor Scale. Find it on PubMed, Morganti, B., Scivoletto, G., et al. FIM scores were tracked at admission, discharge, three and 12 months after discharge. The Functional Independence Measurement (FIM) is an outcome measurement tool used by physical therapists and other healthcare professionals to measure overall independence during specific functional tasks. )”( Nichol et al., 2011) The FIM instrument is appropriate for patients at all levels of EDSS; rating reflects limited responsiveness data, training required, and copyright issues (MS EDGE task force), The FIM instrument was examined in white, black, and Hispanic people post-stroke that were admitted to inpatient rehabilitation. Kong, (2013) Level and predictors of participation in patients with stroke undergoing inpatient rehabilitation. "The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation." Find it on PubMed, Pollak, N., Rheault, W., et al. The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) was developed to address the issues of sensitivity Sensitivity refers to the probability that a diagnostic technique will detect a particular disease or condition when it does indeed exist in a patient (National Multiple Sclerosis Society). (2011). The SCIM assesses traumatic and non-traumatic, acute and chronic Spinal Cord Injury (SCI). Racial/ethnic group, age, length of stay and medical comorbidities were significant predictors of total FIM ratings over the four time points. (Ottiger et al A new multidisciplinary observation scale for inpatients post stroke based on the ICF model of activity and participation was created to document outcomes post stroke (LIMOS). Poor to excellent predictive validity was found between the domains of the Stroke Impact Scale and the FIM (0.26-0.70, p < 0.05). "Falls in persons with spinal cord injury: validity and reliability of the Berg Balance Scale." ( 2011) Systematic review of outcome measures used in the evaluation of robot-assisted upper limb exercise in stroke. Find it on PubMed, Tur, B. S., Gursel, Y. K., et al. Find it on PubMed. Find it on PubMed. (Lungren Nilsson et al 2011). If this is an emergency, please dial 911, A Young Scientist's Journey after a Stroke, Care by the Numbers: Skilled Nursing versus Inpatient Rehabilitation, Community-Ready Upper Extremity Interactive Rehabilitation, Global Advisory Services — Hospital Training & Consulting, Medical Student Education & Residency Program, 3 Day Vestibular Rehabilitation: Theory, Evidence and Practical Application Course, Updates in Supporting Patients Communication with New Technologies, Overcoming Challenges: Evaluation & Treatment of Sensory Based Feeding Disorders in Children, http://www.neuropt.org/go/healthcare-professionals/neurology-section-outcome-measures-recommendations, Making Waves Following a Spinal Cord Injury, Full Circle After a Non-Traumatic Brain Injury, An Unanticipated Head Injury and Incredibly Bright Future. the scoring considers the use of adaptive equipment and/or the extent of personal assistance or Davidson, M. (2008). 1:6-18. . 2004), For assessment of individuals with SCI, Rasch analysis indicates a four-category rating scale vs. the original seven-category scale has increased reliability (Nilsson, et al. J Rehabil Med 38(4): 237-242. Chen, H., Wu, C., et al. The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) is an assessment tool that aims to evaluate the functional status of patients throughout the rehabilitation process following a stroke, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury or cancer. (2013). Grey, N. and Kennedy, P. (1993). (2011). Sensitivity: A functional reach criterion of less than 25.4 cm for risk of falls identified only 30% of the individuals with PD known to be at risk from their history of falls. All correlations significant at p < 0.001. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 25(9): 855-864. "The Functional Independence Measure: tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories." The maximum total score Spinal Cord 39(2): 97-100. Internal consistency and reliability were measured with the Japanese FIM+FAM-J in 42 patients a mean 30.2 (± 21.2) days post CVA . Assessment of functional status is a major responsibility for professionals practicing in rehabilitation facilities. "The Functional Independence Measure: a comparative study of clinician and self ratings." Jan 23, 2019 - The FIM™ instrument (Functional Independence Measure). Excellent correlation between the FIM-Motor and the TRS (0.849), (Ellis et al, 2008; n = 68; mean age - 74 (8) years; H&Y stages II - V, number in each stage: II - 1, III - 18, IV - 37, V - 2), (Marciniak et al, 2011; n = 89; mean age = 74.26 (9.38) years), (Pollak et al 1996; n = 49 elderly residents of a continuing care retirement community; mean age 89.7 years; assessed twice 3 to 8 days apart, Elderly Adults), (Kohler et al, 2009; n = 143 patients (63% orthopedic and 13% stroke); mean age = 76 years; transferred and assessed from one Rehab unit to another; 1 to 3 days between assessments, Orthopedic Diagnoses and Stroke). "Scoring alternatives for FIM in neurological disorders applying Rasch analysis." "Cross-diagnostic validity in a generic instrument: an example from the Functional Independence Measure in Scandinavia." The language, personality, thinking, and vision domains were not significant. J Rehabil Med 43(10): p. 884-91. A., Yavuzer, G., et al. (Bates, 2015-Part 1) A retrospective analysis of 4020 veterans receiving consultative or comprehensive rehabilitation care post-stroke. (2003). (Turner et al, 2010). “Where are we in terms of poststroke functional outcomes and risk factors.” NeuroRehabilitation 34: 391-399. Adv Clin Rehabil 1(3503663): 6-18. 2001; n = 28; mean age = 46 (17) years; with tetraplegia = 6 subjects, with paraplegia = 22 subjects; with Frankel A or B = 7 subjects, with Frankel C or D = 21 subjects, SCI), (Itzkovich et al 2003; n = 28; mean age = 46 (17) years; with tetraplegia = 6 subjects, with paraplegia = 22 subjects; with Frankel A or B = 7 subjects, with Frankel C or D = 21 subjects; comparison of interview vs. observation, SCI), (Itzkovich et al., 2007; n = 425 from six countries; mean age = 46.93 (18.17) years; 188 with tetraplegia, 237 with paraplegia; AIS A = 35.5%, AIS B = 13.9%, AIS C = 21.6%, AIS D = 28%, SCI), (Glass, et al., 2009; n = 86; mean age = 43.2 (16.5) years; 46.5% with tetraplegia, 53.5% with paraplegia; completeness of injury AIS A and B = 63%, AIS C and D = 37%, SCI), (Bluvshtein et al, 2011; n = 261; mean age = 40.1 (17.1) years; 55% tetraplegia, 45% paraplegia; AIS A = 49.2%, AIS B = 13.5%, AIS C = 19.6%, AIS D = 17.7%, Traumatic SCI), (Berry and Kennedy, 2003; n = 43; mean age = 42.19 (14.6) years; mean time between injury and assessment for = 17.5 (13.2) weeks; 13.9% = complete tetraplegia, 37.2% = incomplete tetraplegia, 23.3%= complete paraplegia, and 25.6% = incomplete paraplegia, Subacute SCI), (Catz, et al, 2007; n = 425; 46.93 (18.17) years; 188 tetraplegia, and 237 = paraplegia; sample drawn from an international sample, Acute SCI), (Morganti et al, 2005; n = 184, mean age = 50.4 (19.3) years; mean time from injury to rehab 56.9 (43.9) days; lesion levels 81 with cervical, 148 with thoracic, and 55 with lumbar-sacral; completeness of injury AIS A and B = 103 subjects, AIS C and D = 181 subjects, Subacute SCI), (Van Hedel, 2009; n = 1182 from 18 European centers; subjects with AIS A = 413, mean age 39 (18) years, 65% with paraplegia; subjects with AIS B = 113, mean age 42 (18) years, 44% with paraplegia, subject with AIS C = 137, mean age 48 (20) years, 47% with paraplegia; subjects with AIS D = 223, mean age 47 (17) years, 37% with paraplegia, Subacute SCI), (Wirz, et al.