Cargando…
The Responsiveness of the Lucerne ICF-Based Multidisciplinary Observation Scale: A Comparison with the Functional Independence Measure and the Barthel Index
BACKGROUND: Good responsive functional outcome measures are important to measure change in stroke patients. The aim of study was to compare the internal and external responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects of the motor, cognition, and communication subscales of the Lucerne ICF-based Multidisciplin...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5035834/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27725808 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2016.00152 |
_version_ | 1782455455559188480 |
---|---|
author | Vanbellingen, Tim Ottiger, Beatrice Pflugshaupt, Tobias Mehrholz, Jan Bohlhalter, Stephan Nef, Tobias Nyffeler, Thomas |
author_facet | Vanbellingen, Tim Ottiger, Beatrice Pflugshaupt, Tobias Mehrholz, Jan Bohlhalter, Stephan Nef, Tobias Nyffeler, Thomas |
author_sort | Vanbellingen, Tim |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Good responsive functional outcome measures are important to measure change in stroke patients. The aim of study was to compare the internal and external responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects of the motor, cognition, and communication subscales of the Lucerne ICF-based Multidisciplinary Observation Scale (LIMOS) with the motor and cognition subscales of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), and the Barthel Index (BI), in a large cohort of stroke patients. METHODS: One hundred eighteen stroke patients participated in this study. Admission and discharge score distributions of the LIMOS motor, LIMOS cognition and communication, FIM motor and FIM cognition, and BI were analyzed based on skewness and kurtosis. Floor and ceiling effects of the scales were determined. Internal responsiveness was assessed with t-tests, effect sizes (ESs), and standardized response means (SRMs). External responsiveness was investigated with linear regression analyses. RESULTS: The LIMOS motor and LIMOS cognition and communication subscales were more responsive, expressed by higher ESs (ES = 0.65, SRM = 1.17 and ES = 0.52, SRM = 1.17, respectively) as compared with FIM motor (ES = 0.54, SRM = 0.96) and FIM cognition (ES = 0.41, SRM = 0.88) and the BI (ES = 0.41, SRM = 0.65). The LIMOS subscales showed neither floor nor ceiling effects at admission and discharge (all <15%). In contrast, ceiling effects were found for the FIM motor (16%), FIM cognition (15%) at discharge and the BI at admission (22%) and discharge (43%). LIMOS motor and LIMOS cognition and communication subscales significantly correlated (p < 0.0001) with a change in the FIM motor and FIM cognition subscales, suggesting good external responsiveness. CONCLUSION: We found that the LIMOS motor and LIMOS cognition and communication, which are ICF-based multidisciplinary standardized observation scales, might have the potential to better detect changes in functional outcome of stroke patients, compared with the FIM motor and FIM cognition and the BI. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5035834 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-50358342016-10-10 The Responsiveness of the Lucerne ICF-Based Multidisciplinary Observation Scale: A Comparison with the Functional Independence Measure and the Barthel Index Vanbellingen, Tim Ottiger, Beatrice Pflugshaupt, Tobias Mehrholz, Jan Bohlhalter, Stephan Nef, Tobias Nyffeler, Thomas Front Neurol Neuroscience BACKGROUND: Good responsive functional outcome measures are important to measure change in stroke patients. The aim of study was to compare the internal and external responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects of the motor, cognition, and communication subscales of the Lucerne ICF-based Multidisciplinary Observation Scale (LIMOS) with the motor and cognition subscales of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), and the Barthel Index (BI), in a large cohort of stroke patients. METHODS: One hundred eighteen stroke patients participated in this study. Admission and discharge score distributions of the LIMOS motor, LIMOS cognition and communication, FIM motor and FIM cognition, and BI were analyzed based on skewness and kurtosis. Floor and ceiling effects of the scales were determined. Internal responsiveness was assessed with t-tests, effect sizes (ESs), and standardized response means (SRMs). External responsiveness was investigated with linear regression analyses. RESULTS: The LIMOS motor and LIMOS cognition and communication subscales were more responsive, expressed by higher ESs (ES = 0.65, SRM = 1.17 and ES = 0.52, SRM = 1.17, respectively) as compared with FIM motor (ES = 0.54, SRM = 0.96) and FIM cognition (ES = 0.41, SRM = 0.88) and the BI (ES = 0.41, SRM = 0.65). The LIMOS subscales showed neither floor nor ceiling effects at admission and discharge (all <15%). In contrast, ceiling effects were found for the FIM motor (16%), FIM cognition (15%) at discharge and the BI at admission (22%) and discharge (43%). LIMOS motor and LIMOS cognition and communication subscales significantly correlated (p < 0.0001) with a change in the FIM motor and FIM cognition subscales, suggesting good external responsiveness. CONCLUSION: We found that the LIMOS motor and LIMOS cognition and communication, which are ICF-based multidisciplinary standardized observation scales, might have the potential to better detect changes in functional outcome of stroke patients, compared with the FIM motor and FIM cognition and the BI. Frontiers Media S.A. 2016-09-26 /pmc/articles/PMC5035834/ /pubmed/27725808 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2016.00152 Text en Copyright © 2016 Vanbellingen, Ottiger, Pflugshaupt, Mehrholz, Bohlhalter, Nef and Nyffeler. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Neuroscience Vanbellingen, Tim Ottiger, Beatrice Pflugshaupt, Tobias Mehrholz, Jan Bohlhalter, Stephan Nef, Tobias Nyffeler, Thomas The Responsiveness of the Lucerne ICF-Based Multidisciplinary Observation Scale: A Comparison with the Functional Independence Measure and the Barthel Index |
title | The Responsiveness of the Lucerne ICF-Based Multidisciplinary Observation Scale: A Comparison with the Functional Independence Measure and the Barthel Index |
title_full | The Responsiveness of the Lucerne ICF-Based Multidisciplinary Observation Scale: A Comparison with the Functional Independence Measure and the Barthel Index |
title_fullStr | The Responsiveness of the Lucerne ICF-Based Multidisciplinary Observation Scale: A Comparison with the Functional Independence Measure and the Barthel Index |
title_full_unstemmed | The Responsiveness of the Lucerne ICF-Based Multidisciplinary Observation Scale: A Comparison with the Functional Independence Measure and the Barthel Index |
title_short | The Responsiveness of the Lucerne ICF-Based Multidisciplinary Observation Scale: A Comparison with the Functional Independence Measure and the Barthel Index |
title_sort | responsiveness of the lucerne icf-based multidisciplinary observation scale: a comparison with the functional independence measure and the barthel index |
topic | Neuroscience |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5035834/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27725808 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2016.00152 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vanbellingentim theresponsivenessofthelucerneicfbasedmultidisciplinaryobservationscaleacomparisonwiththefunctionalindependencemeasureandthebarthelindex AT ottigerbeatrice theresponsivenessofthelucerneicfbasedmultidisciplinaryobservationscaleacomparisonwiththefunctionalindependencemeasureandthebarthelindex AT pflugshaupttobias theresponsivenessofthelucerneicfbasedmultidisciplinaryobservationscaleacomparisonwiththefunctionalindependencemeasureandthebarthelindex AT mehrholzjan theresponsivenessofthelucerneicfbasedmultidisciplinaryobservationscaleacomparisonwiththefunctionalindependencemeasureandthebarthelindex AT bohlhalterstephan theresponsivenessofthelucerneicfbasedmultidisciplinaryobservationscaleacomparisonwiththefunctionalindependencemeasureandthebarthelindex AT neftobias theresponsivenessofthelucerneicfbasedmultidisciplinaryobservationscaleacomparisonwiththefunctionalindependencemeasureandthebarthelindex AT nyffelerthomas theresponsivenessofthelucerneicfbasedmultidisciplinaryobservationscaleacomparisonwiththefunctionalindependencemeasureandthebarthelindex AT vanbellingentim responsivenessofthelucerneicfbasedmultidisciplinaryobservationscaleacomparisonwiththefunctionalindependencemeasureandthebarthelindex AT ottigerbeatrice responsivenessofthelucerneicfbasedmultidisciplinaryobservationscaleacomparisonwiththefunctionalindependencemeasureandthebarthelindex AT pflugshaupttobias responsivenessofthelucerneicfbasedmultidisciplinaryobservationscaleacomparisonwiththefunctionalindependencemeasureandthebarthelindex AT mehrholzjan responsivenessofthelucerneicfbasedmultidisciplinaryobservationscaleacomparisonwiththefunctionalindependencemeasureandthebarthelindex AT bohlhalterstephan responsivenessofthelucerneicfbasedmultidisciplinaryobservationscaleacomparisonwiththefunctionalindependencemeasureandthebarthelindex AT neftobias responsivenessofthelucerneicfbasedmultidisciplinaryobservationscaleacomparisonwiththefunctionalindependencemeasureandthebarthelindex AT nyffelerthomas responsivenessofthelucerneicfbasedmultidisciplinaryobservationscaleacomparisonwiththefunctionalindependencemeasureandthebarthelindex |