Abstract
Objective:
To analyse cross-culture validity of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM™) in patients with a spinal cord injury using a modern psychometric approach.
Settings:
A total of 19 rehabilitation facilities from four countries in Europe.
Participants:
A total of 647 patients at admission, median age 46 years, 69% male.
Methods:
Data from the FIM™, collected on inpatient admission, was fitted to the Rasch model. A detailed analysis of scoring functions of the seven categories of the FIM™ items was undertaken before to testing fit to the model. Categories were rescored where necessary. Fit to the model was assessed initially within country, and then in the pooled data. Analysis of differential item functioning (DIF) was undertaken in the pooled data for each of the FIM™ motor and social cognitive scales, respectively. Final fit to the model was tested for breach of local independence by principle components analysis (PCA).
Results:
The present scoring system for the FIM™ motor and cognitive scales, that is a seven category scale, was found to be invalid, necessitating extensive rescoring. Following this, DIF was found in a number of items within the motor scale, requiring a complex solution of splitting items by country to allow for the valid pooling of data. Five country-specific items could not be retained within this solution. The FIM cognitive scale fitted the Rasch model after rescoring, but there was a substantial ceiling effect.
Conclusions:
Data from the FIM™ motor scale for patients with spinal cord injury should not be pooled in its raw form, or compared from country to country. Only after fit to the Rasch model and necessary adjustments could such a comparison be made, but with a loss of clinical important items. The FIM cognitive scale works well following rescoring, and data may be pooled, but many patients were at the maximum score.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Meyers AR, Andresen EM, Hagglund KJ . A model of outcomes research: spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81 (Suppl 2): S81–S90.
Haigh R et al. The use of outcome measures in physical medicine and rehabilitation within Europe. J Rehabil Med 2001; 33: 273–278.
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB . Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000; 25: 3186–3191.
Word Health Organisation. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. WHO: Geneva 2002.
Cohen ME, Marino RJ . The tools of disability outcomes research functional status measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81 (Suppl 2): S21–S29.
Keith R, Granger C, Hamilton B, Sherwin F . The Functional Independence Measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. In: Eisenberg M, Grzesiak R (eds). Advances in Clinical Rehabilitation. New York: Springer Publishing Co 1987 pp 6–18.
Eastwood EA, Hagglund KJ, Ragnarsson KT, Gordon WA, Marino RJ . Medical rehabilitation length of stay and outcomes for persons with traumatic spinal cord injury – 1990–1997. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80: 1457–1463.
McKinley WO, Seel RT, Gadi RK, Tewksbury MA . Nontraumatic versus traumatic spinal cord injury: a rehabilitation outcome comparison. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 80: 693–699; quiz 700, 716.
Putzke JD, Hicken BL, Richards JS . Race: predictor versus proxy variable. Outcomes after spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 1603–1611.
Segal ME, Ditunno JF, Staas WE . Interinstitutional agreement of individual functional independence measure (FIM) items measured at two sites on one sample of SCI patients. Paraplegia 1993; 31: 622–631.
Davidoff GN, Roth EJ, Haughton JS, Ardner MS . Cognitive dysfunction in spinal cord injury patients: sensitivity of the Functional Independence Measure subscales versus neuropsychologic assessment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1990; 71: 326–329.
Grey N, Kennedy P . The Functional Independence Measure: a comparative study of clinician and self ratings. Paraplegia 1993; 31: 457–461.
Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD, Granger CV, Hamilton BB . The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75: 127–132.
Rasch G . Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. University of Chicago Press: Expanded ed. Chicago 1980.
Smith RM . Fit analysis in latent trait measurement models. J Appl Meas 2000; 1: 199–218.
Andrich D . Rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 1978; 43: 561–573.
Silverstein B, Kilgore KM, Fisher WP, Harley JP, Harvey RF . Applying psychometric criteria to functional assessment in medical rehabilitation: I. Exploring unidimensionality. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1991; 72: 631–637.
Tennant A, Hillman M, Fear J, Pickering A, Chamberlain MA . Are we making the most of the stanford health assessment questionnaire? Br J Rheumatol 1996; 35: 574–578.
Prieto L, Alonso J, Lamarca R, Wright BD . Rasch measurement for reducing the items of the Nottingham Health Profile. J Outcome Meas 1998; 2: 285–301.
Angoff W . Perspectives on Differential Item Functiong Methodolgy. In: Holland P, Wainer H, (eds). Differential Item Functioning. Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, New Jersey 1993.
Tennant A et al. Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through differential item functioning within the framework of the Rasch model: the PRO-ESOR project. Med Care 2004; 42 (Suppl): I37–I48.
Smith EV . Detecting and evaluation the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. J Appl Measure 2002; 3: 205–231.
Linacre JM . Investigating rating scale category utility. J Outcome Measurement 1999; 3: 103–122.
Orlando M, Marshall GN . Differential item functioning in a Spanish translation of the PTSD checklist: detection and evaluation of impact. Psychol Assessment 2002; 14: 50–59.
Elashoff JD . NQuery Advisor. Version 4.0. User's Guide. Boston: Statistical Solutions, 2000.
Andrich D, Lyne A, Sheridan B, Luo G . RUMM 2020. RUMM Laboratory: Perth, 2003.
Bland JM, Altman DG . Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. BMJ 1995; 310: 170.
Lundgren-Nilsson A et al. Cross-cultural validity of Functional Independence Measure items in stroke:A study using Rasch analysis. J Rehabil Med 2005; 37: 23–31.
Smith RM . A comparison of methods for determining dimensionality in Rasch measurement. Structural Equation Modelling 1996; 3: 35–40.
Fricke J, Unsworth C, Worell D . Reliability of the Functional Independence Measure with occupational therapist. Aus Occupational Ther J 1993; 40: 2–15.
Küçükdeveci AA, Yavuzer G, Ehan AH, Sonel B, Tennant A . Adaptation of the Functional Independence Measure for use in Turkey. Clinical Rehabil 2001; 15: 311–319.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lawton, G., Lundgren-Nilsson, Å., Biering-Sørensen, F. et al. Cross-cultural validity of FIM in spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 44, 746–752 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3101895
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3101895
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
The Rest of the Story: A Qualitative Study of Complementing Standardized Assessment Data with Informal Interviews with Older Patients and Families
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (2017)
-
The experience of using the scale of Functional Independence Measure in individuals undergoing spinal cord injury rehabilitation in Brazil
Spinal Cord (2014)
-
The influence of age on functional recovery of adults with spinal cord injury or disease after inpatient rehabilitative care: a pilot study
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research (2013)
-
Syndromics: A Bioinformatics Approach for Neurotrauma Research
Translational Stroke Research (2011)
-
Internal validity of a household food security scale is consistent among diverse populations participating in a food supplement program in Colombia
BMC Public Health (2008)
