Limits...
Reliability, validity, sensitivity and internal consistency of the ICF based Basic Mobility Scale for measuring the mobility of patients with musculoskeletal problems in the acute hospital setting: a prospective study.

Pieber K, Herceg M, Paternostro-Sluga T, Pablik E, Quittan M, Nicolakis P, Fialka-Moser V, Crevenna R - BMC Musculoskelet Disord (2015)

Bottom Line: The BMS proved to be sensitive to improvements in mobility (Wilcoxon's signed rank test: p < 0.0001; The effect size for the BMS was 1.075 and the standardized response mean 1.10.At admission, the BMS was less vulnerable to floor effects.It is easy to apply, sensitive to change during the hospital stay and not vulnerable to floor and ceiling effects.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Medical University of Vienna General Hospital of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, A-1090, Vienna, Austria. karin.pieber@meduniwien.ac.at.

ABSTRACT

Background: The assessment of mobility is important in the acute care setting. Existing tests suffer from limitations. The aim of the study was to examine the inter-rater reliability, the validity, the sensitivity to change, and the internal consistency of an ICF based scale.

Methods: In a prospective study inpatients in the acute care setting with restricted mobility aged above 50 years assigned to rehabilitative treatment were included. Assessment of subscales of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and the ICF based Basic Mobility Scale (BMS) were performed at admission and before discharge. Furthermore pain, length of stay in hospital, and post-discharge residential status were recorded. Inter-rater reliability, criterion-concurrent validity, sensitivity to change, and internal consistency were calculated. Furthermore, floor and ceiling effects were determined.

Results: One hundred twenty-five patients (79 women/46 men) were included. The BMS showed an excellent inter-rater reliability for the total BMS (ICC BMS: 0.85 (95 % CI: 0.81-0.88). The criterion-concurrent validity was high to excellent (Spearman correlation coefficient: -0.91 in correlation to FIM) and the internal consistency was good (Cronbach's alpha 0.88). The BMS proved to be sensitive to improvements in mobility (Wilcoxon's signed rank test: p < 0.0001; The effect size for the BMS was 1.075 and the standardized response mean 1.10. At admission, the BMS was less vulnerable to floor effects.

Conclusions: The BMS may be used as a reliable and valid tool for the assessment of mobility in the acute care setting. It is easy to apply, sensitive to change during the hospital stay and not vulnerable to floor and ceiling effects.

No MeSH data available.


Correlation of the Basic Mobility Scale (BMS) with the sum of the subscales of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM)
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4525726&req=5

Fig1: Correlation of the Basic Mobility Scale (BMS) with the sum of the subscales of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM)

Mentions: Total FIM score and BMS were significantly negatively correlated (Spearman correlation coefficient: −0.91). For more detail see Fig. 1. This correlation was slightly stronger at admission than at discharge, which might be due to the very low variance between the patients at discharge (Spearman BMS-FIM at admission: −0.86 (p < 0.0001) and at discharge: −0.78 (p < 0.0001)).Fig. 1


Reliability, validity, sensitivity and internal consistency of the ICF based Basic Mobility Scale for measuring the mobility of patients with musculoskeletal problems in the acute hospital setting: a prospective study.

Pieber K, Herceg M, Paternostro-Sluga T, Pablik E, Quittan M, Nicolakis P, Fialka-Moser V, Crevenna R - BMC Musculoskelet Disord (2015)

Correlation of the Basic Mobility Scale (BMS) with the sum of the subscales of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM)
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4525726&req=5

Fig1: Correlation of the Basic Mobility Scale (BMS) with the sum of the subscales of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM)
Mentions: Total FIM score and BMS were significantly negatively correlated (Spearman correlation coefficient: −0.91). For more detail see Fig. 1. This correlation was slightly stronger at admission than at discharge, which might be due to the very low variance between the patients at discharge (Spearman BMS-FIM at admission: −0.86 (p < 0.0001) and at discharge: −0.78 (p < 0.0001)).Fig. 1

Bottom Line: The BMS proved to be sensitive to improvements in mobility (Wilcoxon's signed rank test: p < 0.0001; The effect size for the BMS was 1.075 and the standardized response mean 1.10.At admission, the BMS was less vulnerable to floor effects.It is easy to apply, sensitive to change during the hospital stay and not vulnerable to floor and ceiling effects.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Medical University of Vienna General Hospital of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, A-1090, Vienna, Austria. karin.pieber@meduniwien.ac.at.

ABSTRACT

Background: The assessment of mobility is important in the acute care setting. Existing tests suffer from limitations. The aim of the study was to examine the inter-rater reliability, the validity, the sensitivity to change, and the internal consistency of an ICF based scale.

Methods: In a prospective study inpatients in the acute care setting with restricted mobility aged above 50 years assigned to rehabilitative treatment were included. Assessment of subscales of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and the ICF based Basic Mobility Scale (BMS) were performed at admission and before discharge. Furthermore pain, length of stay in hospital, and post-discharge residential status were recorded. Inter-rater reliability, criterion-concurrent validity, sensitivity to change, and internal consistency were calculated. Furthermore, floor and ceiling effects were determined.

Results: One hundred twenty-five patients (79 women/46 men) were included. The BMS showed an excellent inter-rater reliability for the total BMS (ICC BMS: 0.85 (95 % CI: 0.81-0.88). The criterion-concurrent validity was high to excellent (Spearman correlation coefficient: -0.91 in correlation to FIM) and the internal consistency was good (Cronbach's alpha 0.88). The BMS proved to be sensitive to improvements in mobility (Wilcoxon's signed rank test: p < 0.0001; The effect size for the BMS was 1.075 and the standardized response mean 1.10. At admission, the BMS was less vulnerable to floor effects.

Conclusions: The BMS may be used as a reliable and valid tool for the assessment of mobility in the acute care setting. It is easy to apply, sensitive to change during the hospital stay and not vulnerable to floor and ceiling effects.

No MeSH data available.