TY  - JOUR
PY  - 2009//
TI  - Spinal Cord Independence Measure, version III: applicability to the UK spinal cord injured population
JO  - Journal of rehabilitation medicine
A1  - Glass, Clive A.
A1  - Tesio, Luigi
A1  - Itzkovich, Malka
A1  - Soni, Bakul M.
A1  - Silva, P.
A1  - Mecci, Munawar
A1  - Chadwick, Raymond
A1  - el Masry, Waghi
A1  - Osman, A.
A1  - Savic, Gordana
A1  - Gardner, Bridget
A1  - Bergstrom, Ebba
A1  - Catz, Amiram
SP  - 723
EP  - 728
VL  - 41
IS  - 9
N2  - OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity, reliability and usefulness of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure for the UK spinal cord injury population. DESIGN: Multi-centre cohort study. SETTING: Four UK regional spinal cord injury centres. SUBJECTS: Eighty-six people with spinal cord injury. INTERVENTIONS: Spinal Cord Independence Measure and Functional Independence Measure on admission analysed using inferential statistics, and Rasch analysis of Spinal Cord Independence Measure. Main outcome measures: Internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, discriminant validity; Spinal Cord Independence Measure subscale match between distribution of item difficulty and patient ability measurements; reliability of patient ability measures; fit of data to Rasch model; unidimensionality of subscales; hierarchical ordering of categories within items; differential item functioning across patient groups. RESULTS: Scale reliability (kappa coefficients range 0.491-0.835; (p < 0.001)), internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.770 and 0.780 for raters), and validity (Pearson correlation; p < 0.01) were all significant. Spinal Cord Independence Measure subscales compatible with stringent Rasch requirements; mean infit indices high; distinct strata of abilities identified; most thresholds ordered; item hierarchy stable across clinical groups and centres. Misfit and differences in item hierarchy identified. Difficulties assessing central cord injuries highlighted. CONCLUSION: Conventional statistical and Rasch analyses justify the use of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure in clinical practice and research in the UK. Cross-cultural validity may be further improved.<p />  <p>Language: en</p>
LA  - en
SN  - 1650-1977
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0398
ID  - ref1
ER  -