Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry logoLink to Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry
. 1999 Apr;66(4):480–484. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.66.4.480

Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure

J J M F van der Putten 1, J Hobart 1, J Freeman 1, A Thompson 1
PMCID: PMC1736299  PMID: 10201420

Abstract

BACKGROUND—The importance of evaluating disability outcome measures is well recognised. The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) was developed to be a more comprehensive and "sensitive" measure of disability than the Barthel Index (BI). Although the FIM is widely used and has been shown to be reliable and valid, there is limited information about its responsiveness, particularly in comparison with the BI. This study compares the appropriateness and responsiveness of these two disability measures in patients with multiple sclerosis and stroke.
METHODS—Patients with multiple sclerosis (n=201) and poststroke (n=82) patients undergoing inpatient neurorehabilitation were studied. Admission and discharge scores were generated for the BI and the three scales of the FIM (total, motor, and cognitive). Appropriateness of the measures to the study samples was determined by examining score distributions, floor and ceiling effects. Responsiveness was determined using an effect size calculation.
RESULTS—The BI, FIM total, and FIM motor scales show good variability and have small floor and ceiling effects in the study samples. The FIM cognitive scale showed a notable ceiling effect in patients with multiple sclerosis. Comparable effect sizes were found for the BI, and two FIM scales (total and motor) in both patients with multiple sclerosis and stroke patients.
CONCLUSION—All measures were appropriate to the study sample. The FIM cognitive scale, however, has limited usefulness as an outcome measure in progressive multiple sclerosis. The BI, FIM total, and FIM motor scales show similar responsiveness, suggesting that both the FIM total and FIM motor scales have no advantage over the BI in evaluating change.



Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (93.7 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Carey R. G., Seibert J. H., Posavac E. J. Who makes the most progress in inpatient rehabilitation? An analysis of functional gain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988 May;69(5):337–343. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Collin C., Wade D. T., Davies S., Horne V. The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud. 1988;10(2):61–63. doi: 10.3109/09638288809164103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dodds T. A., Martin D. P., Stolov W. C., Deyo R. A. A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993 May;74(5):531–536. doi: 10.1016/0003-9993(93)90119-u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Freeman J. A., Langdon D. W., Hobart J. C., Thompson A. J. The impact of inpatient rehabilitation on progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 1997 Aug;42(2):236–244. doi: 10.1002/ana.410420216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Freeman J. A., Playford E. D., Nicholas R. S., Thompson A. J. A neurological rehabilitation unit: audit of activity and outcome. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1996 Jan-Feb;30(1):21–26. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Granger C. V., Cotter A. C., Hamilton B. B., Fiedler R. C. Functional assessment scales: a study of persons after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993 Feb;74(2):133–138. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Granger C. V., Cotter A. C., Hamilton B. B., Fiedler R. C., Hens M. M. Functional assessment scales: a study of persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1990 Oct;71(11):870–875. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Greenspun B., Stineman M., Agri R. Multiple sclerosis and rehabilitation outcome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1987 Jul;68(7):434–437. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Guyatt G., Walter S., Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(2):171–178. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hamilton B. B., Laughlin J. A., Fiedler R. C., Granger C. V. Interrater reliability of the 7-level functional independence measure (FIM) Scand J Rehabil Med. 1994 Sep;26(3):115–119. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Holmes W. C., Shea J. A. Performance of a new, HIV/AIDS-targeted quality of life (HAT-QoL) instrument in asymptomatic seropositive individuals. Qual Life Res. 1997 Aug;6(6):561–571. doi: 10.1023/a:1018464200708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kazis L. E., Anderson J. J., Meenan R. F. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S178–S189. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Keith R. A., Granger C. V., Hamilton B. B., Sherwin F. S. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. Adv Clin Rehabil. 1987;1:6–18. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kidd D., Stewart G., Baldry J., Johnson J., Rossiter D., Petruckevitch A., Thompson A. J. The Functional Independence Measure: a comparative validity and reliability study. Disabil Rehabil. 1995 Jan;17(1):10–14. doi: 10.3109/09638289509166622. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kirshner B., Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38(1):27–36. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(85)90005-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kurtzke J. F. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983 Nov;33(11):1444–1452. doi: 10.1212/wnl.33.11.1444. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Liang M. H., Larson M. G., Cullen K. E., Schwartz J. A. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum. 1985 May;28(5):542–547. doi: 10.1002/art.1780280513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. MAHONEY F. I., BARTHEL D. W. FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION: THE BARTHEL INDEX. Md State Med J. 1965 Feb;14:61–65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Patrick D. L., Deyo R. A. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S217–S232. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Sackett D. L., Rosenberg W. M., Gray J. A., Haynes R. B., Richardson W. S. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996 Jan 13;312(7023):71–72. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Sharrack B., Hughes R. A. Clinical scales for multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. 1996 Jan;135(1):1–9. doi: 10.1016/0022-510x(95)00261-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Wade D. T., Collin C. The Barthel ADL Index: a standard measure of physical disability? Int Disabil Stud. 1988;10(2):64–67. doi: 10.3109/09638288809164105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Willoughby E. W., Paty D. W. Scales for rating impairment in multiple sclerosis: a critique. Neurology. 1988 Nov;38(11):1793–1798. doi: 10.1212/wnl.38.11.1793. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES