We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Validation Studies
Validity and reliability comparison of 4 mobility measures in patients presenting with neurologic impairment.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2001 January
OBJECTIVE: To establish the reliability and validity of 4 mobility measures in neurologically impaired adults undergoing rehabilitation.
DESIGN: Repeated assessment of same patients.
SETTING: Two specialized neurologic centers in England.
PATIENTS: Forty-six patients with neurologic disabilities selected from inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation centers who were able to stand and walk at least 10 meters, with some aid if needed.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assessed twice, at an interval of 7 days, by the same person at the same location. Validity and reliability of each measure were compared by means of scatterplots, Bland-Altman method, and correlation coefficients. Validity was also established by comparing groups of patients expected to differ in mobility.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) standard version and a version with 4 levels of answer, the 10-meter timed walk, and the 2-minute walk test.
RESULTS: The measures showed significant intercorrelation, suggesting that all were valid mobility measures. Each was reasonably reliable, with no evidence of systematic bias. The revised RMI was less sensitive to differences. The distance covered in the 2-minute walk test was significantly decreased for patients using aids (p <.0005) and those with impaired leg sensation (p =.02).
CONCLUSIONS: All 4 measures tested (2 RMI versions, 1-meter timed walk, 2-minute walk test) showed similar validity and reliability, and the 4-level RMI version failed to show an increased ability to detect differences. All measures showed more disability in patients using aids and those with sensory impairment.
DESIGN: Repeated assessment of same patients.
SETTING: Two specialized neurologic centers in England.
PATIENTS: Forty-six patients with neurologic disabilities selected from inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation centers who were able to stand and walk at least 10 meters, with some aid if needed.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assessed twice, at an interval of 7 days, by the same person at the same location. Validity and reliability of each measure were compared by means of scatterplots, Bland-Altman method, and correlation coefficients. Validity was also established by comparing groups of patients expected to differ in mobility.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) standard version and a version with 4 levels of answer, the 10-meter timed walk, and the 2-minute walk test.
RESULTS: The measures showed significant intercorrelation, suggesting that all were valid mobility measures. Each was reasonably reliable, with no evidence of systematic bias. The revised RMI was less sensitive to differences. The distance covered in the 2-minute walk test was significantly decreased for patients using aids (p <.0005) and those with impaired leg sensation (p =.02).
CONCLUSIONS: All 4 measures tested (2 RMI versions, 1-meter timed walk, 2-minute walk test) showed similar validity and reliability, and the 4-level RMI version failed to show an increased ability to detect differences. All measures showed more disability in patients using aids and those with sensory impairment.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults.Gut 2024 April 17
Systemic lupus erythematosus.Lancet 2024 April 18
Should renin-angiotensin system inhibitors be held prior to major surgery?British Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 May
Ventilator Waveforms May Give Clues to Expiratory Muscle Activity.American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2024 April 25
Acute Kidney Injury and Electrolyte Imbalances Caused by Dapagliflozin Short-Term Use.Pharmaceuticals 2024 March 27
Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024.Endoscopy 2024 April 27
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app