Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2018 Nov;19(11):1046–1053. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000001710

Table 1.

Comparison of the Pediatric Functional Independence Measure (WeeFIM) and the Functional Status Score (FSS)

Characteristics Pediatric Functional Independence Measure (WeeFIM) Functional Status Scale (FSS)
Functional score to measure usual performance to criterion standards of self-care, sphincter control, transfers, locomotion, communication, and social cognitive tasks (18) Functional score based on activities of daily living that correlates to a more extensive measure of adaptive behavior, the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System II (10)
Domains (number of criteria) Self-care (8)
Mobility (5)
Cognition (5)		 Mental Status (1)
Sensory (1)
Communication (1)
Motor (1)
Feeding (1)
Respiratory (1)
Age Range 6 months – 7 yearsa (17)
Infant module (0–3 years) available but is an indirect evaluation and not consistently used		 Newborn – 18 years (15)
Scoring
 Total 18–126 (higher score represents lower disability) 6–30 (higher score represents greater disability)
 Domain-specific scoring Self-care: 8–56
Mobility: 5–35
Cognition: 5–35
Composite Motor (mobility + self-care): 13–91		 All domains: 1–5
Categorizations (12, 30) Complete Dependence: 1–2
Modified Dependence: 3–5
Independent: 6–7		 >21: very severely abnormal
16–21: severely abnormal
10–15: moderately abnormal
8–9: mildly abnormal
6–7: good
Advantages (4–10, 13, 30, 31)
  • -

    Comprehensive

  • -

    Uniformity (requires certified training)

  • -

    Validated in healthy and disabled children

  • -

    Broadly applied in rehabilitation research
  • -

    Brief

  • -

    Comprehensive

  • -

    Quantitative

  • -

    Minimal training required

  • -

    Minimally dependent on subjective assessments

  • -

    Easy scoring algorithm

  • -

    Validated in hospitalized patients and applied to measure post-discharge status

  • -

    Validated across pediatric age range

  • -

    Can be easily abstracted from the medical record
Disadvantages (13, 18)
  • -

    Proprietary

  • -

    Complicated scoring algorithm

  • -

    Limited to prospective data collection

  • -

    Requires multi-disciplinary evaluation

  • -

    Limited utility to discern functional deficits versus normal development in children < 3 years-old
  • -

    Requires further validation to determine predictive ability

  • -

    Requires further validation for use beyond the acute care setting
a

If cognitively impaired, instrument is applicable to children up to 7 years cognitive age.