• Arch Phys Med Rehabil · Aug 2013

    Validity and reliability of the FIM instrument in the inpatient burn rehabilitation population.

    • Paul Gerrard, Richard Goldstein, Margaret A Divita, Colleen M Ryan, Jacqueline Mix, Paulette Niewczyk, Lewis Kazis, Karen Kowalske, Ross Zafonte, and Jeffrey C Schneider.
    • Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. pbgerrard@partners.org
    • Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Aug 1;94(8):1521-1526.e4.

    ObjectiveTo provide evidence of construct validity for the FIM instrument in the inpatient rehabilitation burn population.DesignConfirmatory factor analysis and item response theory were used to assess construct validity. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed on a 2-factor model of the FIM instrument and on a 6-subfactor model. Mokken scale analysis, a nonparametric item response theory, was performed on each of the FIM instrument's 2 major factors, motor and cognitive domains. Internal consistency using Cronbach alpha and Molenaar and Sijtsma's statistic was also examined.SettingInpatient rehabilitation facilities.ParticipantsData from the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation for patients with an impairment code of burn injury from the years 2002 to 2011 were used for this analysis. A total of 7569 subjects were included in the study.InterventionsNot applicable.Main Outcome MeasuresComparative fit index results for the confirmatory factor analyses and adherence to assumptions of the Mokken scale model.ResultsConfirmatory factor analysis provided a comparative fit index of .862 for the 2-factor model and .941 for the 6-subfactor model. Mokken scale analysis showed scalability coefficients of .681 and .891 for the motor and cognitive domains, respectively. Measures of internal consistency statistic gave values of >.95 for each major domain of the FIM instrument.ConclusionsThe FIM instrument has evidence of validity and reliability as an outcome measure for patients with burn injuries in the inpatient rehabilitation setting. The 6-subfactor model provides a better fit than the 2-factor model by confirmatory factor analysis. There is evidence that the motor and cognitive domains each form valid unidimensional metrics based on nonparametric item response theory.Copyright © 2013 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.