The reliability of the functional independence measure: A quantitative review

Kenneth Ottenbacher, Yungwen Hsu, Carl V. Granger, Roger C. Fiedler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

690 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The reliability of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM(SM)) for adults was examined using procedures of meta-analysis. Data Sources: Eleven published studies reporting estimates of reliability for the FIM were located using computer searches of Index Medicus, Psychological Abstracts, the Functional Assessment Information Service, and citation tracking. Study Selection: Studies were identified and coded based on type of reliability (interrater, test-retest, or equivalence), method of data analysis, size of sample, and training or experience of raters. Data Extraction: Information from the articles was coded by two independent raters. Interrater reliability for coding all elements included in the analysis ranged from .89 to 1.00. Data Synthesis: The 11 investigations included a total of 1,568 patients and produced 221 reliability coefficients. The majority of the reliability values (81%) were from interrater reliability studies, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was the most commonly used statistical procedure to compute reliability. The reported reliability values were converted to a common correlation metric and aggregated across the 11 studies. The results revealed a median interrater reliability for the total FIM of .95 and median test-retest and equivalence reliability values of .95 and .92, respectively. The median reliability values for the six FIM subscales ranged from .95 for Self-Care to .78 for Social Cognition. For the individual FIM items, median reliability values varied from .90 for Toilet Transfer to .61 Comprehension. Median and mean reliability coefficients for FIM motor items were generally higher than for items in the cognitive or communication subscales. Conclusions: Based on the 11 studies examined in this review the FIM demonstrated acceptable reliability across a wide variety of settings, raters, and patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1226-1232
Number of pages7
JournalArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume77
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1996

Fingerprint

Information Storage and Retrieval
Reproducibility of Results
Information Services
Self Care
MEDLINE
Sample Size
Cognition
Meta-Analysis
Communication
Psychology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Rehabilitation

Cite this

The reliability of the functional independence measure : A quantitative review. / Ottenbacher, Kenneth; Hsu, Yungwen; Granger, Carl V.; Fiedler, Roger C.

In: Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Vol. 77, No. 12, 12.1996, p. 1226-1232.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ottenbacher, Kenneth ; Hsu, Yungwen ; Granger, Carl V. ; Fiedler, Roger C. / The reliability of the functional independence measure : A quantitative review. In: Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1996 ; Vol. 77, No. 12. pp. 1226-1232.
@article{8369420bf5824a38b4db481c81ccd15d,
title = "The reliability of the functional independence measure: A quantitative review",
abstract = "Objective: The reliability of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM(SM)) for adults was examined using procedures of meta-analysis. Data Sources: Eleven published studies reporting estimates of reliability for the FIM were located using computer searches of Index Medicus, Psychological Abstracts, the Functional Assessment Information Service, and citation tracking. Study Selection: Studies were identified and coded based on type of reliability (interrater, test-retest, or equivalence), method of data analysis, size of sample, and training or experience of raters. Data Extraction: Information from the articles was coded by two independent raters. Interrater reliability for coding all elements included in the analysis ranged from .89 to 1.00. Data Synthesis: The 11 investigations included a total of 1,568 patients and produced 221 reliability coefficients. The majority of the reliability values (81{\%}) were from interrater reliability studies, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was the most commonly used statistical procedure to compute reliability. The reported reliability values were converted to a common correlation metric and aggregated across the 11 studies. The results revealed a median interrater reliability for the total FIM of .95 and median test-retest and equivalence reliability values of .95 and .92, respectively. The median reliability values for the six FIM subscales ranged from .95 for Self-Care to .78 for Social Cognition. For the individual FIM items, median reliability values varied from .90 for Toilet Transfer to .61 Comprehension. Median and mean reliability coefficients for FIM motor items were generally higher than for items in the cognitive or communication subscales. Conclusions: Based on the 11 studies examined in this review the FIM demonstrated acceptable reliability across a wide variety of settings, raters, and patients.",
author = "Kenneth Ottenbacher and Yungwen Hsu and Granger, {Carl V.} and Fiedler, {Roger C.}",
year = "1996",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90184-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "77",
pages = "1226--1232",
journal = "Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation",
issn = "0003-9993",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The reliability of the functional independence measure

T2 - A quantitative review

AU - Ottenbacher, Kenneth

AU - Hsu, Yungwen

AU - Granger, Carl V.

AU - Fiedler, Roger C.

PY - 1996/12

Y1 - 1996/12

N2 - Objective: The reliability of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM(SM)) for adults was examined using procedures of meta-analysis. Data Sources: Eleven published studies reporting estimates of reliability for the FIM were located using computer searches of Index Medicus, Psychological Abstracts, the Functional Assessment Information Service, and citation tracking. Study Selection: Studies were identified and coded based on type of reliability (interrater, test-retest, or equivalence), method of data analysis, size of sample, and training or experience of raters. Data Extraction: Information from the articles was coded by two independent raters. Interrater reliability for coding all elements included in the analysis ranged from .89 to 1.00. Data Synthesis: The 11 investigations included a total of 1,568 patients and produced 221 reliability coefficients. The majority of the reliability values (81%) were from interrater reliability studies, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was the most commonly used statistical procedure to compute reliability. The reported reliability values were converted to a common correlation metric and aggregated across the 11 studies. The results revealed a median interrater reliability for the total FIM of .95 and median test-retest and equivalence reliability values of .95 and .92, respectively. The median reliability values for the six FIM subscales ranged from .95 for Self-Care to .78 for Social Cognition. For the individual FIM items, median reliability values varied from .90 for Toilet Transfer to .61 Comprehension. Median and mean reliability coefficients for FIM motor items were generally higher than for items in the cognitive or communication subscales. Conclusions: Based on the 11 studies examined in this review the FIM demonstrated acceptable reliability across a wide variety of settings, raters, and patients.

AB - Objective: The reliability of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM(SM)) for adults was examined using procedures of meta-analysis. Data Sources: Eleven published studies reporting estimates of reliability for the FIM were located using computer searches of Index Medicus, Psychological Abstracts, the Functional Assessment Information Service, and citation tracking. Study Selection: Studies were identified and coded based on type of reliability (interrater, test-retest, or equivalence), method of data analysis, size of sample, and training or experience of raters. Data Extraction: Information from the articles was coded by two independent raters. Interrater reliability for coding all elements included in the analysis ranged from .89 to 1.00. Data Synthesis: The 11 investigations included a total of 1,568 patients and produced 221 reliability coefficients. The majority of the reliability values (81%) were from interrater reliability studies, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was the most commonly used statistical procedure to compute reliability. The reported reliability values were converted to a common correlation metric and aggregated across the 11 studies. The results revealed a median interrater reliability for the total FIM of .95 and median test-retest and equivalence reliability values of .95 and .92, respectively. The median reliability values for the six FIM subscales ranged from .95 for Self-Care to .78 for Social Cognition. For the individual FIM items, median reliability values varied from .90 for Toilet Transfer to .61 Comprehension. Median and mean reliability coefficients for FIM motor items were generally higher than for items in the cognitive or communication subscales. Conclusions: Based on the 11 studies examined in this review the FIM demonstrated acceptable reliability across a wide variety of settings, raters, and patients.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030459923&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030459923&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90184-7

DO - 10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90184-7

M3 - Article

C2 - 8976303

AN - SCOPUS:0030459923

VL - 77

SP - 1226

EP - 1232

JO - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

JF - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

SN - 0003-9993

IS - 12

ER -