SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Di Fabio, R. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Di Fabio, R. P.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Reliability and Validity of Functional Assessment in Patients with Stroke

Richard P. Di Fabio

Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, U.S.A.

The methods and rationale used to establish reliability and validity of functional status assessments (FSAs) were reviewed with specific reference to clients with cerebrovascular disease. There exists some confusion in the literature regarding the evaluation of impairment versus the assessment of disability. The impairments rated by some FSAs included measures of muscle tone, reflex changes, and abnormal synergies. In contrast, the assessments of disability addressed deficits related to ambulation, transfers, and other activities of daily living. A clear relationship between impairment and disability has not yet been established. The majority of studies described reliability by reporting some correlational measure, but only three of six studies measured agreement between raters. Criterion-related validity was the most widely utilized form of validity testing described in the studies reviewed. The use of criterion measures such as the extent of cerebral lesion or the pattern of electromyographic activity were found empirically to be weak indicators of function. Therefore, correlations of a proficiency index of activities of daily living with these criterion measures of function did not necessarily provide support for validity. It is recommended that future studies clarify the distinction between disability and impairment and report chance-corrected measures of agreement when describing the reliability of discrete outcome scales.

Key Words: Reliability • Validity • Stroke assessment • Cerebrovascular disease.

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, Vol. 4, No. 3, 145-152 (1990)
DOI: 10.1177/136140969000400304


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?




Advertisement