Time trends in ability level and functional outcome of stroke and multiple sclerosis patients undergoing comprehensive rehabilitation in Slovenia

Cohen ME, Marino RJ. The tools of disability outcomes research: functional status measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81 (12 Suppl 2): S21-9.10.1053/apmr.2000.20620Search in Google Scholar

Brock KA, Vale SJ, Cotton SM. The effect of the introduction of a case-mix-based funding model of rehabilitation for severe stroke: an Australian experience. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88: 827-32.10.1016/j.apmr.2007.04.001Search in Google Scholar

Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Sherwin FS, Zielezny M, Tasman JS. A uniform data system for medical rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer MJ, editor. Rehabilitation Outcomes: Analysis and measurement. Baltimore: Brooks, 1987: 137-47.Search in Google Scholar

Kidd D, Stewart G, Baldry J, Johnson J, Rossiter D, Petruckevitch A, et al. The Functional Independence Measure: a comparative validity and reliability study. Disabil Rehabil 1995; 17: 10-4.10.3109/09638289509166622Search in Google Scholar

Bottemiller KL, Bieber PL, Basford JR, Harris M. FIM score, FIM efficiency, and discharge disposition following inpatient stroke rehabilitiation. Rehabil Nurs 2006; 31: 22-5.10.1002/j.2048-7940.2006.tb00006.xSearch in Google Scholar

Seel RT, Wright G, Wallace T, Newman S, Dennis L. The utility of the FIM+FAM for assessing traumatic brain injury day program outcomes. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2007; 22: 267-77.10.1097/01.HTR.0000290971.56130.c8Search in Google Scholar

Khan F, Pallant JF, Brand C, Kilpatric TJ. Effectiveness of rehabilitiation intervention in persons with multiple sclerosis: a randomised control trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2008; 79: 1230-5.10.1136/jnnp.2007.133777Search in Google Scholar

Lieberman D, Friger M, Lieberman D. Rehabilitation outcome following hip fracture surgery in elderly diabetics: a prospective cohort study of 224 patients. Disabil Rehabil 2007: 339-45.10.1080/09638280600834542Search in Google Scholar

Gabbe BJ, Simpson PM, Sutherland AM, Williamson OD, Judson R, Kossmann T, et al. Functional measures at discharge: are they useful predictors of long term outcomes for trauma registries? Ann Surg 2008; 247: 854-9.10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181656d1eSearch in Google Scholar

Muslimovic D, Post B, Speelman JD, Schmand B, de Haan RJ; CARPA Study Group. Determinants of disability and quality of life in mild to moderate Parkinson disease. Neurology 2008; 70: 2241-7.10.1212/01.wnl.0000313835.33830.80Search in Google Scholar

Oczkowski WJ, Barreca S. The Functional Independence Measure: its use to identify rehabilitation needs in stroke survivors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 74: 1291-4.10.1016/0003-9993(93)90081-KSearch in Google Scholar

Lin KC, Wu CY, Wei TH, Gung C, Lee CY, Liu JS. Effects of modified constraint-induced movement therapy on reach-to-grasp movements and functional performance after chronic stroke: a randomised controlled study. Clin Rehabil 2007; 21: 1075-86.10.1177/0269215507079843Search in Google Scholar

Bowman M, Faux S, Wilson S. Rural inpatient rehabilitation by specialist outreach: comparison with a city unit. Aust J Rural Health 2008; 16: 237-40.10.1111/j.1440-1584.2008.00970.xSearch in Google Scholar

Ostwald SK, Swank PR, Khan MM. Predictors of functional independence and stress level of stroke at discharge from inpatient rehabiltiation. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2008; 23: 371-7.10.1097/01.JCN.0000317435.29339.5dSearch in Google Scholar

Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fiedler RC. The reliability of the Functional Independence Measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 1226-32.10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90184-7Search in Google Scholar

Stineman MG, Shea JA, Jette A, Tassoni CJ, Ottenbacher KJ, Fiedler R, et al. The Functional Independence Measure: tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 1101-8.10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90130-6Search in Google Scholar

Tennant A, Penta M, Tesio L, Grimby G, Thonnard JL, Slade A, et al. Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitations scales through differential item functining within the framework of the Rasch model. The PRO-ESor project. Medical Care 2004; 42 (Suppl 1) :I-37-48.10.1097/01.mlr.0000103529.63132.7714707754Search in Google Scholar

Lawton G, Lundgren-Nilsson Å, Biering-Sorensen F, Tesio L, Slade A, Penta M, et al. Cross-cultural validity of FIM in spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2006; 44: 746-52.10.1038/sj.sc.310189516389268Search in Google Scholar

Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD. Performance profiles of the functional independence measure. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 72: 84-9.10.1097/00002060-199304000-000058476548Search in Google Scholar

Lundgren-Nilsson Å, Tennant A, Grimby G, Sunnerhagen KS. Cross-diagnostic validity in a generic instrument: an example from the Functional Independence Measure in Scandinavia. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006; 4: 55.10.1186/1477-7525-4-55157429116928268Search in Google Scholar

Tennant A, Penta M, Tesio L, Grimby G, Thonnard J-L, Slade A, et al. Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through Differential Item Functioning within the framework of the Rasch model: the PRO-ESOR project. Med Care 2004; 42 (1 Suppl): I-37-48.10.1097/01.mlr.0000103529.63132.77Search in Google Scholar

Middel B, van Sonderen E. Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research. Int J Integr Care 2002; 2: e15.10.5334/ijic.65Search in Google Scholar

Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Efficiency, effectiveness, and duration of stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 1990; 21: 241-6.10.1161/01.STR.21.2.241Search in Google Scholar

Huber PJ. Robust estimation of a location parameter. Ann Math Statist 1964; 35: 73-101.10.1214/aoms/1177703732Search in Google Scholar

R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2008, URL http://www.R-project.orgSearch in Google Scholar

Venables WN, Ripley BD. Modern Applied Statistics with S. 4th ed. New York: Springer, 2002.10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2Search in Google Scholar

Hunter J. Outcome, indices and measurements. In: CJ Goodwill, MA Chamberlain, C Evans, editors. Rehabilitation of the physically disabled adult. 2nd ed. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes, 1997: 87-100.Search in Google Scholar

Wright J, Cross J, Lamb SE. Physiotherapy outcome measures for rehabilitation of elderly people: responsiveness to change of the Rivermead Mobility Index and Barthel Index. Physiotherapy 1998; 84: 216-21.10.1016/S0031-9406(05)65552-6Search in Google Scholar

Wheeler DJ. Understanding Variation. 2nd ed. Knoxville: SPC Press, 2000.Search in Google Scholar

Vidmar G, Burger H, Marinček Č, Cugelj R. Analysis of data on assessment with the Functional Independent Measure at the Institute for Rehabilitation, Republic of Slovenia. Inf Med Slov 2008; 13: 21-32.Search in Google Scholar

Vidmar G. Monitoring functional independence in a rehabilitation hospital: an example of efficient use of a simple mixture distribution model. Inf Med Slov 2009; 14: 19-23.Search in Google Scholar

Cook Johnson C. The effects of single and compound violations of data set assumptions when using the oneway, fixed effects analysis of variance and the one concomitant analysis of covariance statistical models. New Orleans: Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association; 1993. Available from: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/15/30/98.pdf http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/15/30/98.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

Walters SJ, Brazier JE. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 4.10.1186/1477-7525-1-415554712737635Search in Google Scholar

Middel B, van Sonderen E. Erratum. Int J Integr Care 2008; 8: e72.10.5334/ijic.66Search in Google Scholar

Haas U, Mayer H, Evers GC. Interobserver reliability of the "Functional Independence Measure" (FIM) in patients with craniocerebral injuries. Pflege 2002; 15: 191-7.10.1024/1012-5302.15.4.19112244828Search in Google Scholar

Lundgren-Nilsson A, Grimby G, Ring H, Tesio L, Lawton G, Slade A, Penta M, et al. Cross-cultural validity of functional independence measure items in stroke: a study using Rasch analysis. J Rehabil Med 2005; 37: 23-31.10.1080/1650197041003269615788329Search in Google Scholar

Lundgren-Nilsson A, Tennant A, Grimby G, Sunnerhagen KS. Cross-diagnostic validity in a generic instrument: an example from the Functional Independence Measure in Scandinavia. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006 23; 4: 55.10.1186/1477-7525-4-55157429116928268Search in Google Scholar

Gabbe BJ, Sutherland AM, Wolfe R, Williamson OD, Cameron PA. Can the modified functional independence measure be reliably obtained from the patient medical record by different raters? Trauma 2007; 63: 1374-9.10.1097/01.ta.0000240481.55341.3818212664Search in Google Scholar

Kohler F, Dickson H, Redmond H, Estell J, Connolly C. Agreement of functional independence measure item scores in patients transferred from one rehabilitation setting to another. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2009; 45: 479-85.Search in Google Scholar