A Rasch-Based Comparison of the Functional Independence Measure and Spinal Cord Independence Measure for Outcome and Quality in the Rehabilitation of Persons with Spinal Cord Injury
Keywords:Spinal Cord Injury, Functional Independence Measure, Spinal Cord Independence Measure, Activities of Daily Living, Rasch Measurement Model, Psychometrics, Outcome Assessment (Healthcare), Quality in Health Care, Rehabilitation
Objective: The Functional Independence Measure (FIM™) and spinal cord injury (SCI)-specific Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) are commonly used tools for outcome measurement and quality reporting in rehabilitation. The objective of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of FIM™ and SCIM and to equate the 2 scales.
Methods: First, content equivalence of FIM™ and SCIM was established through qualitative linking with the International Classification for Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Secondly, a Rasch analysis of overlapping contents determined the metric properties of the scales and provided the empirical basis for scale equating. Furthermore, a transformation table for FIM™ and SCIM was created and evaluated.
Subjects: Patients with SCI in Swiss inpatient rehabilitation in 2017–18.
Results: The ICF linking and a separate Rasch analysis of FIM™ restricted the analysis to the motor scales of FIM™ and SCIM. The Rasch analysis of these scales showed good metric properties. The co-calibration of FIM™ and SCIM motor scores was supported with good fit to the Rasch model. The operational range of SCIM is larger than for FIM™ motor scale.
Discussion: This study supports the advantage of using SCIM compared with FIM™ for assessing the functional independence of patients with SCI in rehabilitation.
In our study we compared two rehabilitation outcome assessment tools commonly used to measure functional independence in Spinal Cord Injury: the Functional Independence Measure (FIM™), a general tool, and the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM), a tool specifically developed for Spinal Cord Injury rehabilitation. We first compared the content of the two tools using the International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF). Then we tested their measurement properties and put them on a common measurement scale, which allows to directly compare scores of the two tools. The common measurement scale was obtained by mean of a so-called Rasch analysis. The results showed that the FIM™ motor items can be compared to the SCIM items from a content but also from a metric point of view. The study showed an advantage in using the SCIM compared to the FIM™ for assessing the functional independence of patients in Spinal Cord Injury rehabilitation.
Busse R. Diagnosis-related groups in Europe moving towars transparency,efficiency and quality in hospitals. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2011.
Prodinger B, Tennant A, Stucki G, Cieza A, Ustun TB. Harmonizing routinely collected health information for strengthening quality management in health systems: requirements and practice. J Health Serv Res Policy 2016; 21: 223-228.
Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. Adv Clin Rehabil 1987; 1: 6-18.
Maritz R, Tennant A, Fellinghauer C, Stucki G, Prodinger B. The Functional Independence Measure 18-item version can be reported as a unidimensional interval-scaled metric: internal construct validity revisited. J Rehabil Med 2019; 51: 193-200.
Australasian Rehabilitation Outcomes Centre - University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia (2021 UOW). [Accessed January 10, 2022] Available from https: //ahsri.uow.edu.au/aroc/index.html.
Canadian Institute for Health Information: Better data. Better decisions. Healthier Canadians. Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa, Canada (CIHI2022). [Retrieved January 10, 2022] Available from https://www.cihi.ca/en/about-cihi.
Swiss National Association for Quality Development in Hospitals and Clinics, Bern Switzerland (2022 ANQ). Review Information: Rehabilitation. [Accessed January 10, 2022] Available from https://www.anq.ch/en/departments/rehabilitation/review-information-rehabilitation/.
World Health Organization (WHO), ISCOS: International Perspectives on Spinal Cord Injury. Malta: World Health Organization; 2013.
Curt A, Hund-Georgiadis M, Jordan X, Baumberger M. Qualitäts- und Leistungskriterien für die Behandlung von Patienten mit einer Para- oder Tetraplegie sowie mit querschnittähnlicher Symptomatik. Nottwil: Swiss Society of Paraplegia; 2018.
Anderson K, Aito S, Atkins M, Biering-Sorensen F, Charlifue S, Curt A et al. Functional recovery measures for spinal cord injury: an evidence-based review for clinical practice and research. Spinal Cord Med 2008; 31: 133-144.
Middleton JW, Harvey LA, Batty J, Cameron I, Quirk R, Winstanley J. Five additional mobility and locomotor items to improve responsiveness of the FIM in wheelchair-dependent individuals with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2006; 44: 495-504.
Catz A, Itzkovich M, Agranov E, Ring H, Tamir A. SCIM - Spinal Cord Independence Measure: a new disability scale for patients with spinal cord lesions. Spinal Cord 1997; 35: 850-856.
Dettling M, Wirz M, Mattli R. ST Reha - Zusatzdatenerhebung: Parallelerhebung SCIM/FIM® in den Para-Kliniken im Jahr 2017/2018 : Finaler Schlussbericht. In. Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften: Winterthurer Institut für Gesundheitsökonomie; 2018.
Mallinson T. Rasch analysis of repeated measures. Rasch Meas Trans 2011; 25: 1317-1318.
Lundgren Nilsson A, Tennant A. Past and present issues in Rasch analysis: the functional independence measure (FIM) revisited. J Rehabil Med 2011; 43: 884-891.
Donnelly C, Eng JJ, Hall J, Alford L, Giachino R, Norton K, et al. Client-centred assessment and the identification of meaningful treatment goals for individuals with a spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2004; 42: 302-307.
Marino RJ, Shea JA, Stineman MG. The Capabilities of Upper Extremity instrument: reliability and validity of a measure of functional limitation in tetraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998; 79: 1512-1521.
Yavuz N, Tezyurek M, Akyuz M. A comparison of two functional tests in quadriplegia: the quadriplegia index of function and the functional independence measure. Spinal Cord 1998; 36: 832-837.
Marino RJ, Huang M, Knight P, Herbison GJ, Ditunno JF, Segal M. Assessing selfcare status in quadriplegia: comparison of the quadriplegia index of function (QIF) and the functional independence measure (FIM). Paraplegia 1993, 31: 225-233.
Morganti B, Scivoletto G, Ditunno P, Ditunno JF, Molinari M. Walking index for spinal cord injury (WISCI): criterion validation. Spinal Cord 2005; 43: 27-33.
Itzkovich M, Gelernter I, Biering-Sorensen F, Weeks C, Laramee MT, Craven BC et al. The Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) version III: reliability and validity in a multi-center international study. Disabil Rehabil 2007; 29: 1926-1933.
Stumm C, Hug K, Ballert C, Hund-Georgiadis M. Responsivität des »Spinal Cord Independence Measure« (SCIM) und des »Functional Independence Measure« (FIM) bei Personen mit Rückenmarksverletzung. Neurol Rehabil 2017; 23: 227-232.
Jones LAT, Li CY, Weitzenkamp D, Steeves J, Charlifue S, Whiteneck G. Development and validation of crosswalks Between FIM(R) and SCIM III for voluntary musculoskeletal movement functions. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2021; 35: 880-889.
Kolen MJ, Brennan RL, Kolen MJT. Test equating, scaling, and linking : methods and practices, 2nd edn. New York: Springer; 2004.
World Health Organization: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
Cieza A, Fayed N, Bickenbach J, Prodinger B. Refinements of the ICF Linking Rules to strengthen their potential for establishing comparability of health information. Disabil Rehabil 2016; 41: 574-583.
Prodinger B, Reinhardt JD, Selb M, Stucki G, Yan T, Zhang X et al. Towards system-wide implementation of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in routine practice: developing simple, intuitive descriptions of ICF categories in the ICF Generic and Rehabilitation Set. J Rehabil Med 2016; 48: 508-514.
Masters GN. A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika 1982; 47: 149-174.
Tennant A, Conaghan PG. The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Rheumatol 2007; 57: 1358-1362.
Petrillo J, Cano SJ, McLeod LD, Coon CD. Using classical test theory, item response theory, and Rasch measurement theory to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures: a comparison of worked examples. Value in Health 2015; 18: 25-34.
Prodinger B, Ballert CS, Brinkhof MW, Tennant A, Post MW. Metric properties of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure - self report in a community survey. J Rehabil Med 2016; 48: 149-164.
Andrich D, Sheridan B, Luo G. Rasch models for measurement: RUMM2030. Perth: RUMM Laboratory Pty Ltd; 2010.
Rodriguez A, Reise SP, Haviland MG. Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychol Methods 2016; 21: 137-150.
Quinn HO. Bifactor models, explained common variance (ECV), and the usefulness of scores from unidimensional item response theory analyses. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina; 2014.
Hagell P. Testing Rating Scale unidimensionality using the principal component analysis (PCA) /t- test protocol with the Rasch model: the primacy of theory over statistics. Open J Stat 2014; 4: 456-465.
Wilcoxon F. Individual comparisons of grouped data by ranking methods. J Econ Entomol 1946; 39: 269.
Cohen J. The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: a review. J Abnormal Social Psychol 1962; 65: 145-153.
Leunbach G. A probabilistic measurement model for assessing whether two tests measure the same personal factor. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research; 1976.
Kolen MJ, Brennan RL. Test equating, scaling, and linking. Methods and practices (2nd edition). New York: Springer; 2004.
Adroher ND, Kreiner S, Young C, Mills R, Tennant A. Test equating sleep scales: applying the Leunbach's model. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019; 19: 141.
Kreiner S, Nielsen T. Item analysis in DIGRAM 3.04. Part I: Guided tours. Research report 2013/06.Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, Department of Public Health; 2013.
R Core Team: R. A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2016.
Bennette C, Vickers A. Against quantiles: categorization of continuous variables in epidemiologic research, and its discontents. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012; 12: 21.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2022 Roxanne Maritz, Carolina Fellinghauer, Gerold Stucki, Mirjam Brach, Armin Curt, Hans Peter Gmünder, Maren Hopfe, Margret Hund-Georgiadis, Anke Scheel-Sailer , Xavier Jordan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for non-commercial purposes, provided proper attribution to the original work.