English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 17918/22935 (78%)
Visitors : 7177787      Online Users : 301
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ir.csmu.edu.tw:8080/ir/handle/310902500/24809


    Title: A comparison of test-retest reliability and random measurement error of the Barthel Index and modified Barthel Index in patients with chronic stroke
    Authors: Yang, CM;Wang, YC;Lee, CH;Chen, MH;Hsieh, CL
    Keywords: Barthel Index;modified Barthel Index;activities of daily living;stroke;test-retest reliability;random measurement error
    Date: 2022
    Issue Date: 2022-08-09T08:08:20Z (UTC)
    Publisher: TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
    ISSN: 0963-8288
    Abstract: Objective To compare the test-retest reliability and random measurement errors of the Barthel Index (BI) and modified Barthel Index (MBI) in patients with chronic stroke. Method The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the minimal detectable change (MDC) were applied respectively to examine the test-retest reliability (about 2 weeks apart) and the random measurement errors. The MDC% was used to adjust the cut-off score for determining whether a real change had been achieved, if heteroscedasticity existed. Results A total of 60 patients participated. The BI and MBI both had high ICCs (0.94 and 0.94, respectively) with small MDCs (16.2 and 15.4, respectively) and MDC%s (21.2% and 19.0%, respectively), indicating that both measures have comparable reliability in repeated assessments. However, moderate associations (r= -0.47 for the BI and -0.59 for the MBI) were found between the means of tests and retests and the absolute values of change scores, indicating heteroscedasticity. These findings suggest that a fixed MDC value is not appropriate for determining the real change in both measures because the amount of random measurement error varies with the patients' ADL function. Conclusion The MBI, which showed excellent test-retest reliability and relatively lower random measurement error than the BI, appears to be a better ADL measure. The MDC% adjusted value is recommended to determine whether the change scores are beyond random measurement error.
    URI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2020.1814429
    https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000567617700001
    https://ir.csmu.edu.tw:8080/handle/310902500/24809
    Relation: DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION ,2022 ,v44 ,issue 10 ,p2099-2103
    Appears in Collections:[中山醫學大學研究成果] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML172View/Open


    SFX Query

    All items in CSMUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback