[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.2000.20620]Search 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.2007.04.001]Search 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: 10-4.10.3109/09638289509166622]Search 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.x]Search 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.c8]Search 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.2007.133777]Search 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: 339-45.10.1080/09638280600834542]Search 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.0b013e3181656d1e]Search 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.0000313835.33830.80]Search 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-K]Search 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: 1075-86.10.1177/0269215507079843]Search 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.x]Search 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.0000317435.29339.5d]Search 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)90184-7]Search 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)90130-6]Search 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.0000103529.63132.7714707754]Search 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.310189516389268]Search 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: 84-9.10.1097/00002060-199304000-000058476548]Search 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: 55.10.1186/1477-7525-4-55157429116928268]Search 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.0000103529.63132.77]Search 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.65]Search 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.21.2.241]Search in Google Scholar
[Huber PJ. Robust estimation of a location parameter. Ann Math Statist 1964; 35: 73-101.10.1214/aoms/1177703732]Search 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.org]Search in Google Scholar
[Venables WN, Ripley BD. Modern Applied Statistics with S. 4th ed. New York: Springer, 2002.10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2]Search 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)65552-6]Search 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.pdf]Search 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: 4.10.1186/1477-7525-1-415554712737635]Search in Google Scholar
[Middel B, van Sonderen E. Erratum. Int J Integr Care 2008; 8: e72.10.5334/ijic.66]Search 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: 191-7.10.1024/1012-5302.15.4.19112244828]Search 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: 23-31.10.1080/1650197041003269615788329]Search 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: 55.10.1186/1477-7525-4-55157429116928268]Search 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.0000240481.55341.3818212664]Search 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