Validating the functional capacity index: A comparison of predicted versus observed total body scores

Background: The Functional Capacity Index (FCI) was designed to predict physical function 12 months after injury. We report a validation study of the FCI. Methods: This was a consecutive case series registered in the Queensland Trauma Registry who consented to the prospective 12-month telephone-administered follow-up study. FCI scores measured at 12 months were compared with those originally predicted. Results: Complete Abbreviated Injury Scale score information was available for 617 individuals, of whom 587 (95%) could be assigned at least one FCI score (range, 1-17). Agreement between the largest predicted FCI and observed FCI score was poor (kappa = 0.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.00-0.10) and explained only 1% of the variability in observed FCI. Using an encompassing model that included all FCI assignments, agreement remained poor (kappa = 0.05; 95% confidence interval, -0.02-0.12), and the model explained only 9% of the variability in observed FCI. Conclusion: The predicted functional capacity poorly agrees with actual functional outcomes. Further research should consider including other (noninjury) explanatory factors in predicting FCI at 12 months.

Predicting functional capacity outcome 12 months after hospitalized injury

Background: There is a recognized need to move from mortality to morbidity outcome predictions following traumatic injury. However, there are few morbidity outcome prediction scoring methods and these fail to incorporate important comorbidities or cofactors. This study aims to develop and evaluate a method that includes such variables. Methods: This was a consecutive case series registered in the Queensland Trauma Registry that consented to a prospective 12-month telephone conducted follow-up study. A multivariable statistical model was developed relating Trauma Registry data to trichotomized 12-month post-injury outcome (categories: no limitations, minor limitations and major limitations). Cross-validation techniques using successive single hold-out samples were then conducted to evaluate the model's predictive capabilities. Results: In total, 619 participated, with 337 (54%) experiencing no limitations, 101 (16%) experiencing minor limitations and 181 (29%) experiencing major limitations 12 months after injury. The final parsimonious multivariable statistical model included whether the injury was in the lower extremity body region, injury severity, age, length of hospital stay, pulse at admission and whether the participant was admitted to an intensive care unit. This model explained 21% of the variability in post-injury outcome. Predictively, 64% of those with no limitations, 18% of those with minor limitations and 37% of those with major limitations were correctly identified. Conclusion: Although carefully developed, this statistical model lacks the predictive power necessary for its use as a basis of a useful prognostic tool. Further research is required to identify variables other than those routinely used in the Trauma Registry to develop a model with the necessary predictive utility.

Validation of the Action Research Arm Test using item response theory in patients after stroke

Objective: To validate the unidimensionality of the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) using Mokken analysis and to examine whether scores of the ARAT can be transformed into interval scores using Rasch analysis. Subjects and methods: A total of 351 patients with stroke were recruited from 5 rehabilitation departments located in 4 regions of Taiwan. The 19-item ARAT was administered to all the subjects by a physical therapist. The data were analysed using item response theory by non-parametric Mokken analysis followed by Rasch analysis. Results: The results supported a unidimensional scale of the 19-item ARAT by Mokken analysis, with the scalability coefficient H = 0.95. Except for the item pinch ball bearing 3rd finger and thumb'', the remaining 18 items have a consistently hierarchical order along the upper extremity function's continuum. In contrast, the Rasch analysis, with a stepwise deletion of misfit items, showed that only 4 items (grasp ball'', grasp block 5 cm(3)'', grasp block 2.5 cm(3)'', and grip tube 1 cm(3)'') fit the Rasch rating scale model's expectations. Conclusion: Our findings indicated that the 19-item ARAT constituted a unidimensional construct measuring upper extremity function in stroke patients. However, the results did not support the premise that the raw sum scores of the ARAT can be transformed into interval Rasch scores. Thus, the raw sum scores of the ARAT can provide information only about order of patients on their upper extremity functional abilities, but not represent each patient's exact functioning.

Validation and reliability of the Modified Elderly Mobility Scale

Objective: To establish concurrent validity, interrater and test-retest reliability of the Modified Elderly Mobility Scale (MEMS). Methods: Ninety elderly patients were scored on the MEMS. To establish concurrent validity, 75 patients MEMS scores were compared to Functional Independence Measure (FIM) scores using Spearman's correlation. Videotaped patient performances were used to establish interrater and test-retest reliability using percentage absolute agreement and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Results: The total MEMS score demonstrated a significant association with the motor (r = 0.725) and total FIM scores (r = 0.718). Absolute agreement for interrater reliability was greater than 93% for all test items, with 97 and 98% for the two new measures, respectively. Test-retest reliability demonstrated similar high levels of absolute agreement and had ICCs ranging from 0.870 to 1.0. Conclusions: The MEMS is a quick, valid and reliable test of motor function of elderly patients with a spread of functional levels.