4.6 Article

Reliability Validity and Responsiveness of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure 4th Version in a Multicultural Setup

Journal

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2021.07.811

Keywords

Culture; Multicultural setup; Rehabilitation; Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM); Reliability; Responsiveness; Spinal cord independence measure (SCIM); Spinal cord injuries; Validity; Weights and measures

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the fourth version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM IV). The results showed good interrater reliability and high correlation with SCIM III. The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of SCIM IV were similar to SCIM III, indicating its potential value in clinical and research settings.
Objective: To examine the fourth version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure for reliability and validity. Design: Partly blinded comparison with the criterion standard Spinal Cord Independence Measure III, and between examiners and examinations. Setting: A multicultural cohort from 19 spinal cord injury units in 11 countries. Participants: A total of 648 patients with spinal cord injury. Intervention: Assessment with Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM IV) and Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM III) on admission to inpatient rehabilitation and before discharge. Main outcome measures: SCIM IV interrater reliability, internal consistency, correlation with and difference from SCIM III, and responsiveness. Results: Total agreement between examiners was above 80% on most SCIM IV tasks. All Kappa coefficients were above 0.70 and statistically significant (P<. 001). Pearson's coefficients of the correlation between the examiners were above 0.90, and intraclass correlation coefficients were above 0.90. Cronbach's alpha was above 0.96 for the entire SCIM IV, above 0.66 for the subscales, and usually decreased when an item was eliminated. Reliability values were lower for the subscale of respiration and sphincter management, and on admission than at discharge. SCIM IV and SCIM III mean values were very close, and the coefficients of Pearson correlation between them were 0.91-0.96 (P<. 001). The responsiveness of SCIM IV was not significantly different from that of SCIM III in most of the comparisons. Conclusions: The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of SCIM IV, which was adjusted to assess specific patient conditions or situations that SCIM III does not address, and which includes more accurate definitions of certain scoring criteria, are very good and quite similar to those of SCIM III. SCIM IV can be used for clinical and research trials, including international multi-center studies, and its group scores can be compared with those of SCIM III. (C) 2021 The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available