Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 Jan 6;99(11):2365–2369. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.11.016

Table 1.

Cluster analysis results and outcomes by cluster

Above half shows cluster centers for each input variable that was used for the clustering analysis. Top defining variables for each cluster are shaded in dark gray. Bottom half shows the breakdown of rehabilitation outcomes for each cluster.

Cluster Name
A B C D
INPUT variables
 ethnic/racial minority .25 .72 .95 .24
 significant medical hx .04 .01 .45 .72
 elderly .07 .17 .10 .92
 homelessness hx .29 .05 .70 .00
 substance abuse hx .82 .11 1.00 .08
 incarceration hx .18 .05 .30 .12
 ESL/Non-English Sp .07 .21 .40 .04
 institutionalization hx .18 .00 .30 .08
 psychiatric hx .71 .03 .10 .28
 undocumented .00 .12 .20 .00
 other .04 .04 .00 .00

ANALYSIS variables
Duration of Stay (days)* 21.39 15.95 27.00 18.24
FIM gains (Total) 39.61 27.86 34.74 26.40
 FIM gains (Cog)* 10.9286 7.7571 9.3158 5.2400
 FIM gains (Motor) 28.6786 21.3784 25.4211 21.1600
Discharge Location (χ2 = 12.66, p = .049, n = 148)
 Home 32.1% 56.0% 35.0% 36.0%
 Acute / Subacute Care 53.6% 42.7% 55.0% 60.0%
 Other 14.3% 1.3% 10.0% 4.0%
Primary person at d/c (χ2 = 8.10, p = .231, n = 148)
 Self / Alone / Other 6.6% 5.0% 4.0%
 Family / Friends 32.1% 49.3% 30.0% 32.0%
 Facility Care 67.9% 44.0% 65.0% 64.0%
*

indicates significant group differences between clusters based on omnibus ANOVAs, p < .05.