Evaluation of Impairment and Disability in Stroke Patients: Current Status in Europe

  • Karl-Heinz Mauritz
  • Stefan Hesse
  • Petra E. Denzler


Evaluation of impairment and disability in stroke patients was introduced only recently in most European rehabilitation hospitals. However, there are initiatives in most countries to guarantee certain therapeutic quality standards. Unfortunately, there are large differences in the organization of stroke rehabilitation. Therefore, a unified database for impairment and disability evaluation does not exist on a European level. In this chapter, the most common evaluation instruments used in European countries are summarized. In addition, several examples are given for motor and cognitive impairments as well as for disabilities.


Stroke Patient Barthel Index Functional Independence Measure Stroke Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Hospital 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Wade DT (1992) Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mahoney FL, Barthel DW (1965) Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J 14:61–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Home V (1988) The Barthel ADL index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud 10:61–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roy CW, Togneri J, Hay E, Pentland B (1988) An inter-rater reliability study of the Barthel index. Int J Rehabil Res 11:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Gresham GE, Kramer AA (1989) The stroke rehabilitation outcome study. Part II: Relative merits of the total Barthel-Index score and a four-item subscore in predicting patient outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehab 70:100–103Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wade DT (1992) Evaluating outcome in stroke rehabilitation (quality control and clinical audit). Scand J Rehabil Med (Suppl) 26:97–104Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kalra L, Smith DH, Crome P (1993) Stroke in patients aged over 75 years: outcome and predictors. Postgrad Med J 69:33–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lincoln NB, Gladman JR (1992) The extended activities of daily living scale: a further validation. Disabil Rehabil 14:41–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kalra L, Crome P (1993) The role of prognostic scores in targeting stroke rehabilitation in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 41:396–400PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barer DH (1989) Use of the Nottingham ADL scale in stroke: relationship between functional recovery and length of stay in hospital. J R Coll Physicians Lond 23:242–247PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS (1986) Guide for use of the Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation. Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation, Buffalo, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Granger CV, Hamilton BB (1994) The uniform data system for medical rehabilitation report of first admissions for 1992. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 73:51–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grimby G (1994) The functional independence measure (FIM) in Sweden. In: 7th World Congress of the International Rehabilitation Medicine Association, IRMA VII, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tesio L (1994) Functional independence measure (FIM) in Italy. In: 7th World Congress of the International Rehabilitation Medicine Association, IRMA VII, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frommelt P (1994) Functional independence measure in the Klinik Bavaria. In: 7th World Congress of the International Rehabilitation Medicine Association, IRMA VII, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lains J, Caldas J, Azenha A, Oliveira R, Keating J (1994) Functional outcome in hemiplwgics; a follow-up during one year. In: 7th World Congress of the International Rehabilitation Medicine Association, IRMA VII, Washington, DC (Abstract F 195)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Asberg KH, Nydevik I (1991) Early prognosis of stroke outcome by means of Katz index of activities of daily living. Scand J Rehabil Med 23:187–191PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schoening HA, Iversen IA (1968) Numerical scoring of self-care status: a study of the Kenny self-care evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 49:221–229PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Feder M, Ring H, Rozenthul N, Eldar R (1991) Assessment chart for inpatient rehabilitation following stroke. Int J Rehabil Res 14:223–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oder W, Binder H, Baumgartner C, Zeiler K, Deecke L (1988) Zur Prognose der sozialen Reintegration nach Schlaganfall. Rehabilitation (Stuttg) 27:85–90Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gerdes N, Jackel WH (1992) “Indikatoren des Reha-Status (1RES)”—Ein Patientenfragebogen zur Beurteilung von Rehabilitations-bedürftigkeit und-erfolg. Rehabilitation (Stuttg) 31:73–79Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kesselring J, Gamper UN (1992) Vom Nutzen der Neurorehabilitation. Versuch einer Quantifizierung am Beispiel von 312 Schlaganfallpatienten in der Klinik Valens. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 122:1206–1211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chino N, Sonoda S, Domen K, Saitoh E, Kimura A (1994) Stroke impairment assessment set (SIAS)—a new evaluation instrument for stroke patients. Jpn J Rehabil Med 31:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sanford J, Moreland J, Swanson LR, Stratford PW, Gowland C (1993) Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment for testing motor performance in patients following stroke. Phys Ther 73:447–454PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roques C (1994) Motor function assessment for hemiplegic patients. In: 7th World Congress of the International Rehabilitation Medicine Association, IRMA VII, Washington, DC (abstract)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bohannon RW, Smith MB (1987) Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther 67:206–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hummelsheim H, Mauritz KH (1993) Neurophysiological mechanisms of spasticity modification by physiotherapy. In: Thilmann A, et al (eds) Spasticity: mechanisms and management. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 426–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hesse S, Friedrich H, Domasch C, Mauritz KH (1992) Botulinum toxin therapy for upper limb flexor spasticity: preliminary results. J Rehabil Sei 5:98–101Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hesse S, Jahnke MT, Schreiner C, Mauritz KH (1993) Gait symmetry and functional walking performance in hemiparetic patients prior to and after a 4-week rehabilitation programme. Gait Posture 1:166–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hesse S, Bertelt CH, Schaffrin A, Malezic M, Mauritz KH (1994) Restoration of gait in nonambulatory hemiparetic patients by treadmill training with partial body-weight support. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75:1087–1093PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Huber WK, Poeck K, Weniger D, Willmes K (1983) Der Aachener Aphasie-Test. Hogrefe, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Blomert L, Koster C, van Mier H, Kean ML (1987) Verbal comunication abilities of aphasie patients: the everyday language test. Aphasiology 1:463–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Goodglass H, Kaplan E (1972) The assessment of aphasia and related disorders. Lea and Febiger, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Reinvang I, Graves R (1975) A basic aphasia examination: description with discussion of first results. Scand J Rehabil Med 7:129–135PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Tokyo 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karl-Heinz Mauritz
  • Stefan Hesse
  • Petra E. Denzler
    • 1
  1. 1.Klinik Berlin, Department of Neurological RehabilitationFree University BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations