ArticleArchives of physical medicine and rehabilitation2018
FIM-Minimum Data Set Motor Item Bank: Short Forms Development and Precision Comparison in Veterans.
Article in Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo improve the practical use of the short forms (SFs) developed from the item bank, we compared the measurement precision of the 4- and 8-item SFs generated from a motor item bank composed of the FIM and the Minimum Data Set (MDS).
designThe FIM-MDS motor item bank allowed scores generated from different instruments to be co-calibrated. The 4- and 8-item SFs were developed based on Rasch analysis procedures. This article compared person strata, ceiling/floor effects, and test SE plots for each administration form and examined 95% confidence interval error bands of anchored person measures with the corresponding SFs. We used 0.3 SE as a criterion to reflect a reliability level of .90.
settingVeterans' inpatient rehabilitation facilities and community living centers.
participantsVeterans (N=2500) who had both FIM and the MDS data within 6 days during 2008 through 2010.
interventionsNot applicable.
main outcome measuresFour- and 8-item SFs of FIM, MDS, and FIM-MDS motor item bank.
resultsSix SFs were generated with 4 and 8 items across a range of difficulty levels from the FIM-MDS motor item bank. The three 8-item SFs all had higher correlations with the item bank (r=.82-.95), higher person strata, and less test error than the corresponding 4-item SFs (r=.80-.90). The three 4-item SFs did not meet the criteria of SE <0.3 for any theta values.
conclusionsEight-item SFs could improve clinical use of the item bank composed of existing instruments across the continuum of care in veterans. We also found that the number of items, not test specificity, determines the precision of the instrument.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.