ArticlePloS one2020
Reliability, validity, interpretability and responsiveness of the DEMMI mobility index for Brazilian older hospitalized patients.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chelsea critical care physical assessment tool (CPAx) for adult patients hospitalized in the ward: measurement properties.Brazilian journal of physical therapy · 2026Article
- Validation of the de Morton Mobility Index for measuring mobility related activities in Hungarian institutionalized older adults.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of Aerobic Training for Adverse Symptoms Related to Chemotherapy During Treatment: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial With Cost-Effectiveness Assessment.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Investigation of the Psychological disorders in the healthcare nurses during a coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak in China.Medicine · 2020Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo translate and adapt cross-culturally the De Morton Mobility Index from English to Brazilian Portuguese. Furthermore, to test the content validity, reliability, construct validity, interpretability and responsiveness for older hospitalized patients.
methodsAfter we carried out the translation and the cross-cultural adaptation of the De Morton Mobility Index and its administration instructions according to international guidelines, the content validity of De Morton Mobility Index was tested by experienced physiotherapists. In the sequence, the reliability, construct validity, interpretability and responsiveness were tested in a test-retest design with 93 older patients hospitalized in ward for clinical reasons. The reliability was tested by Cronbach's alpha coefficient (internal consistency), standard error measurement (agreement), and interclass correlation coefficients (intra and inter-examiner reliability). The construct validity was tested by Pearson's correlation between the De Morton Mobility Index score and the number of steps. Interpretability was analyzed by determining the minimum detectable change and the floor and ceiling effects (frequency of maximum and minimum scoring). Responsiveness was analyzed by effect size.
resultsThe Brazilian version of the De Morton Mobility Index was made and adapted. The internal consistency (α = 0.89), reliability intra-(ICC = 0.94) and inter-examiners (ICC = 0.82), agreement were all adequate. The De Morton Mobility Index is validity when correlated with number of steps (r = 0.46). Floor or ceiling effects (<15%) were not observed and the responsiveness was high (ES = 3.65).
conclusionThe De Morton Mobility Index has shown adequate reliability, validity, interpretability and responsiveness for the evaluation of the mobility of older hospitalized patients.
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.