A comparison of test-retest reliability and random measurement error of the Barthel Index and modified Barthel Index in patients with chronic stroke

doi:10.1080/09638288.2020.1814429

CNU IR > Pharmacy and Science > Dept. of Pharmacy > Periodical Articles > Item 310902800/34052

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ir.cnu.edu.tw/handle/310902800/34052

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, Chun Ming Wang, Yi-Ching Lee, Chia-Hua Chen, Mei-Hsiang Hsieh, Ching-Lin
Contributors:	Chi Mei Med Ctr, Dept Neurol Chia Nan Univ Pharm & Sci Natl Taiwan Univ, Coll Med, Sch Occupat Therapy Chung Shan Med Univ Hosp, Dept Phys Med & Rehabil Chung Shan Med Univ, Dept Occupat Therapy Chung Shan Med Univ Hosp, Occupat Therapy Room Natl Taiwan Univ Hosp, Dept Phys Med & Rehabil Asia Univ, Coll Med & Hlth Sci, Dept Occupat Therapy
Keywords:	Barthel Index modified Barthel Index activities of daily living stroke test-retest reliability random measurement error
Date:	2020
Issue Date:	2022-11-18 11:21:50 (UTC+8)
Publisher:	Taylor & Francis Ltd
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.
Relation:	Disability and Rehabilitation, pp.5
Appears in Collections:	[Dept. of Pharmacy] Periodical Articles

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
index.html		0Kb	HTML	531	View/Open

Loading...