ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2025
Aligning metrics with meaning: considerations for measurement selection in disability evaluation.
Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article explores the role of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in disability evaluation, a measurement domain traditionally dominated by clinical performance-based assessments. While performance tests are valued for their perceived objectivity, PROMs have gained prominence in research for their efficiency, patient-centered orientation, and capacity to capture subjective experiences relevant to functional decline related to potentially disabling conditions. The manuscript underscores the importance of aligning measurement tools with the specific purpose of evaluation-whether clinical, policy-driven, or programmatic. Using the Work Disability Functional Assessment Battery (WD-FAB) as an illustrative case, it compares the strengths and limitations of PROMs and performance-based tools in evaluating mental and physical function in the context of disability assessment. PROMs such as the WD-FAB can systematically and efficiently generate scores that represent function across multiple domains of function (e.g., mood and emotion, mobility, cognition) and are particularly well-suited for detecting change over time in large-scale applications. In contrast, performance-based assessments, while useful in certain clinical scenarios, are often resource-intensive and may not accurately reflect real-world functioning. The paper argues that although PROMs should not replace performance measures entirely, they represent a valuable and often preferable alternative or complement in many disability evaluation contexts. Ultimately, the choice of assessment tool should consider the intended use, resource constraints, and the need for comprehensive, patient-centered data.
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.