Rivermead Mobility Index: Difference between revisions
Oyemi Sillo (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Evan Thomas (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
Line 179: | Line 179: | ||
== References<br> == | == References<br> == | ||
<references /> | <references /><br> | ||
[[Category:Outcome_Measures]] [[Category:Stroke]] [[Category: | [[Category:Outcome_Measures]] [[Category:Neurology_Outcome_Measures]] [[Category:Stroke]] [[Category:Spinal Cord Injuries]] [[Category:Acquired Brain Injuries]] [[Category:Amputees]] |
Revision as of 18:51, 3 March 2017
Original Editor - Sinead Greenan
Top Contributors - Sinead Greenan, Chloe Waller, Kim Jackson, Evan Thomas, Oyemi Sillo, WikiSysop, Scott Buxton, Naomi O'Reilly and Amrita Patro
Objective
[edit | edit source]
The Rivermead Mobility Index assesses functional mobility in gait, balance and transfers after stroke
Intended Population
[edit | edit source]
Those with a diagnosis of Stroke, Spinal Cord Injury, Acquired Brain Injury, Lower Limb Amputees
Method of Use[edit | edit source]
Description:
- The Rivermead Mobility Index is appropriate for a range of disabilities that include anything from being bedridden to being able to run
15 items:
- 14-self-reported items
- 1 direct observation item
- Items progress in difficulty
- Items are coded as either 0 or 1, depending on whether the patient can complete the task according to specific instructions
- Items receive a score of 0 for a "No" response and 1 for a "Yes" response
- Total scores are determined by summing the points for all items
- A maximum of 15 points is possible; higher scores indicate better mobility performance
- A score of "0" indicates an inability to perform any of the activities on the measure
Evidence[edit | edit source]
Reliability[edit | edit source]
Test-retest Reliability:
Chronic Stroke:
(Chen et al, 2007; Green, Foster & Young, 2001; n = 22; 1 year post-stroke, assessed twice, with one week between assessments) [1]
- Excellent overall test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.96)
- Excellent test-retest reliability for the following subcategories:
Kappa for turning in bed = 1.0
Kappa for walking inside without aid = 0.89
Kappa for walking outside on uneven ground = 0.83
Kappa for bathing = 0.81
Kappa for picking objects off the floor = 0.79
- Adequate test-retest reliability for the following subcategories:
Kappa for stairs = 0.68
Kappa for lying to sitting = 0.64
Kappa for sitting balance = 0.64
Kappa for transfers = 0.64
Kappa for walking up and down 4 steps = 0.67
Lower Limb Amputees:
(Ryall et al, 2003; n = 62; mean age = 56.8 (18.8) years; mean time post amputation: 4.9 (14.7) years) [2]
- Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.99)
Interrater/Intrarater Reliability:
Acute Stroke: (Hsueh et al, 2003; n = 57; mean age of 64.2 (11.5) years; assessed at 14, 30, 90, and 180 days post stroke; Taiwanese sample) [3]
- Excellent interrater reliability for total score (ICC = 0.92)
- Poor to excellent interrater reliability for individual subcategories (Weighted Kappa = 0.37 - 0.94)
Validity[edit | edit source]
Criterion Validity:
Acute Stroke:
(Hsieh et al, 2000; n = 38 inpatients; Sommerfeld & vo Arbin, 2001; n = 115 inpatients aged > 65; Hsueh et al, 2003) [4]
- Excellent predictive validity with Barthel Index 24 days post stroke (r = 0.77)
- RMI scores of > 4 best predictor of early discharge home
Lower Limb Amputees:
(Ryall et al, 2003) [5]
- Adequate concurrent validity with TWT (r = -0.58)
- Only one value is outside the 95% limits of agreement
Construct Validity:
Acute Stroke: (Hsueh et al, 2003) [6]
- Excellent correlation with BI at 14 days post stroke (r = 0.72)
- Excellent correlation with BI at 30 days post stroke (r = 0.88)
- Excellent correlation with BI at 90 days post stroke (r = 0.86)
- Excellent correlation with BI at 180 days post stroke (r = 0.88)
Lower Limb Amputees: (Franchignoni et al, 2003a, n = 140; mean age = 57 (18) years) [7]
· Excellent correlation with motFIM at beginning of prosthetic training (r = 0.83)
· Excellent correlation with motFIM at end of prosthetic training (r = 0.69)
· Excellent correlation of the change scores for the RMI with changes in motFIM (r = 0.75)
· Excellent correlation with TWT (timed walking test) at end of prosthetic training (r = -0.70)
Content Validity:
Acute Stroke: (Hsieh et al, 2000) [8]
- Critical values for two indicess, coefficient of reproducibility (> 0.9) and coefficient of scalability (> 0.7), were all exceeded
Lower limb amputees: (Franchignoni et al, 2003a) [9]
- Coefficient of reproducibility was exceeded and ranged from 0.71-1.0
- Coefficient of scalability was not exceeded and ranged from 0.38-0.62
Lower limb amputees: (Ryall et al, 2003) [10]
- Coefficient of reproducibility was exceeded and ranged from 0.91-0.94
Responsiveness[edit | edit source]
Acute Stroke: (Hsueh et al, 2003) [11]
Days Post Stoke | n | RMI | MRMI | STREAM | BI |
14-30 | 51 | 1.14 | 1.31 | 1.17 | 1.51 |
30-90 | 43 | 0.86 | 0.83 | 0.95 | 1.07 |
90-180 | 43 | 0.24 | 0.20 | 0.40 | 0.35 |
14-90 | 43 | 1.67 | 1.56 | 1.61 | 2.09 |
14-180 | 43 | 1.94 | 1.53 | 1.65 | 2.01 |
Values reported as SRM (Standardized Response Mean)
RMI = Rivermead Mobility Index
MRMI = Modified Rivermead Mobility Index
STREAM = Mobility Subscale of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement
BI = Barthel Index
Miscellaneous
[edit | edit source]
Links[edit | edit source]
Recent Related Research (from Pubmed)[edit | edit source]
Failed to load RSS feed from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/erss.cgi?rss_guid=1DIq9Kugjqx91dzWe3Kt-ps_aUTZyl0prIvKBANuaJx6qrJs8y|charset=UTF-8|short|max=10: Error parsing XML for RSS
References
[edit | edit source]
- ↑ Chen, H. M., Hsieh, C. L., et al. "The test-retest reliability of 2 mobility performance tests in patients with chronic stroke." Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007 21(4): 347-352
- ↑ Ryall, N. H., Eyres, S. B., et al. "Is the Rivermead Mobility Index appropriate to measure mobility in lower limb amputees?" Disabil Rehabil 2003 25(3): 143-153
- ↑ Hsueh, I. P., Wang, C. H., et al. "Comparison of psychometric properties of three mobility measures for patients with stroke." Stroke 2003 34(7): 1741-1745
- ↑ Hsieh, C. L., Hsueh, I. P., et al. "Validity and responsiveness of the rivermead mobility index in stroke patients." Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2000 32(3): 140-142
- ↑ Ryall, N. H., Eyres, S. B., et al. "Is the Rivermead Mobility Index appropriate to measure mobility in lower limb amputees?" Disabil Rehabil 2003 25(3): 143-153
- ↑ Hsueh, I. P., Wang, C. H., et al. "Comparison of psychometric properties of three mobility measures for patients with stroke." Stroke 2003 34(7): 1741-1745
- ↑ Franchignoni, F., Brunelli, S., et al. "Is the Rivermead Mobility Index a suitable outcome measure in lower limb amputees?--A psychometric validation study." J Rehabil Med 2003 35(3): 141-144
- ↑ Hsieh, C. L., Hsueh, I. P., et al. "Validity and responsiveness of the rivermead mobility index in stroke patients." Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2000 32(3): 140-142
- ↑ Franchignoni, F., Brunelli, S., et al. "Is the Rivermead Mobility Index a suitable outcome measure in lower limb amputees?--A psychometric validation study." J Rehabil Med 2003 35(3): 141-144
- ↑ Ryall, N. H., Eyres, S. B., et al. "Is the Rivermead Mobility Index appropriate to measure mobility in lower limb amputees?" Disabil Rehabil 2003 25(3): 143-153
- ↑ Hsueh, I. P., Wang, C. H., et al. "Comparison of psychometric properties of three mobility measures for patients with stroke." Stroke 2003 34(7): 1741-1745