Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Comprehensive and interdisciplinary measurement of rehabilitation outcome is an essential part of the assessment and prognosis of a patient. Thus, this requires substantial contributions from the patient, their family and the rehabilitation professional working with them. Moreover, the measurement tool should be comprehensive and must consider the cultural compatibility, cost efficiency and contextual factors of the region.
Methods
The Comprehensive Rehabilitation Outcome Measurement Scale (CROMS) was developed through consensus and followed the Delphi process incorporating inputs from various rehabilitation professionals. The domains and items were finalized using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The tool was validated in two native languages and back-translated considering the semantic equivalence of the scale. Intra-class correlation coefficient was performed to determine the agreement between the therapist and patient-reported scales.
Results
The final CROMS carries 32 comprehensive items that can be completed by the person with disability and the professional team. CROMS compares well to similar items on FIM (l ICC of 0.93) and has good internal consistency with a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.92 for both patient and therapist reported measures.
Conclusions
The 32 item CROMS is a tool that can potentially be used to evaluate the functional independence of various patient populations, predominantly patients with neurological disabilities.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,General Medicine
Reference81 articles.
1. Agarwal B, Aglawe D, Sawant B. Physical function assessment tools in the intensive care unit: a narrative review. Crit Rev. 2022;34(1):55.
2. Barskova T, Wilz G. Interdependence of stroke survivors’ recovery and their relatives’ attitudes and health: a contribution to investigating the causal effects. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29(19):1481–91.
3. Baumann LA, Baker J, Elshaug AG. The impact of electronic health record systems on clinical documentation times: a systematic review. Health Policy. 2018;122(8):827–36.
4. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health. 2018;6(149):555.
5. Bujang MA. A simplified guide to determination of sample size requirements for estimating the value of intraclass correlation coefficient: a review. Arch Orofac Sci. 2017;12:1–11.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献