ArticleJournal of rehabilitation medicine2021
Sound psychometric properties of the Swedish version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure Self-Report.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Spinal cord independence measure evidence-based recommendation: a systematic review of measurement properties.Spinal cord · 2026Pooled it
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for assessing functioning, disability, and health of people with spinal cord injury - a scoping review.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Effects of Technology-Assisted Rehabilitation After Spinal Cord Injury: Pilot Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2025Article
- Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM III) self-report.Spinal cord · 2025Article
- Validation of the Nepali version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure Self-Report.Spinal cord series and cases · 2024Article
- Reliability of the Nepali Version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure Self-Report.Rehabilitation research and practice · 2022Article
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
objectiveTo describe data completeness, targeting and reliability of the Swedish version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure Self-Report (s-SCIM-SR).
designTranslation and reliability study. SUBJECTS: Programme participants (n = 48) and peer mentors (n = 42) with spinal cord injury enrolled in the INTERnational Project for the Evaluation of "activE Rehabilitation" (inter-PEER).
methodsThe translation process was based on guidelines/recommendations, and involved expert competence, including consumers. The s-SCIM-SR was distributed online, once for programme participants and twice for peer mentors.
resultsSixty-nine individuals (77%) obtained a total score. Most missing data were found in the items Respiration and Using the toilet. Cronbach's alpha for the full scale was 0.89, for Self-care 0.92, for Respiration and sphincter management 0.37 and for Mobility 0.86. The intraclass correlation coefficient was excellent for all subscales and the full scale. Measures of variability showed high sensitivity to changes and Bland Altman analyses revealed no systematic changes between evaluation points.
conclusionThese results support the data completeness, targeting and reliability of the Swedish version of the SCIM-SR. However, some problems were found in the subscale Respiration and sphincter management. The s-SCIM-SR can be considered psychometrically sound and suitable to assess physical independence among persons with spinal cord injury in Swedish community settings.
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.