4.6 Article

Short-form activity measure for post-acute care

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Volume 85, Issue 4, Pages 649-660

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.08.098

Keywords

activities of daily living; outcomes research; rehabilitation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To develop a comprehensive set of short forms using item response theory (IRT) and item pooling procedures for the purpose of monitoring postacute care functional recovery. Design: Prospective study. Setting: Six postacute health care networks in the greater Boston area, including inpatient acute rehabilitation, transitional care units, home care, and outpatient services. Participants: A convenience sample of 485 adult volunteers who were Currently receiving skilled rehabilitation services. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: We developed a set of 6 short forms across 3 activity domains from new items and items from existing postacute care instruments. Results: Inpatient- and community-based short forms were developed for each of 3 activity domains: physical & movement, applied cognition, and personal care & instrumental. Items were selected for inclusion on the short forms to maximize content coverage and information value of items across the range of content and to minimize ceiling and floor effects. We were able to match the distribution of sample scores with very good item precision for I of the constructs (physical & movement): the other 2 domains (personal care & instrumental, applied cognition) were more challenging because of the variability in patient recovery and ceiling effects. Conclusions: ITR methods and item pooling procedures were valuable in developing paired sets of short-form instruments for inpatient and community rehabilitation that provided estimates of functioning along a common metric for use across postacute care settings.

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