Advertisement

Person Measurement and Rehabilitation Outcome: the New Perspective of Rasch Analysis

  • L. Tesio

Abstract

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) 1980 definition, disability consists in any restriction or lack of ability (resulting from impairment) to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being [1]. The new WHO model (2001) gives to the term disability a broader, more general connotation, but nonetheless confirms the importance of “activities” as the constitutive elements of a person’s “functioning” [2]. Disability and activity are viewed in relation to the person as a whole. For example, a heart condition (according to the 1980 WHO model) might be defined as a lessening (or malfunctioning) of one body part. Difficulty going up stairs likewise represents a deficit with respect to an activity (since a whole person, only, can climb stairs). A deficit in one or more activities defines a malfunctioning of the whole person and is therefore called a disability. Usually, the definition of “function” is misunderstood. In the context of rehabilitative medicine, a recent definition [3], [4] — namely, energy or information exchange — is useful. For although this definition is general, it makes an important distinction between physiologic functions (breathing, nerve conduction, etc.), and functions that take place between the person and environment — in other words, “activities.”

Keywords

Functional Independence Measure Person Measurement Rehabilitation Outcome Psychological Risk Factor Skilled Subject 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    WHO (1980) International classification of impairments, disability, and handicapsGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    WHO (2001) International classification of functioning, disability and health, ICFGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tesio L (2006) Functional assessment in rehabilitation medicine. Principles methods (in italian). Encycl Med Chir I-26-030-B-10, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tesio L (2003) Functional measures in rehabilitation medicine. Principles and methods (in italian). Giorn Ital Med Riabil 3:25–31Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tesio L (1995) Biomedicine between science and assistance. Rehabilitation medicine: the science of assistance (in italian). Il Nuovo areopago 2:80–105Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wade DT, Halligan PW (2004) Do biomedical models of illness make for good health care systems? BMJ 329:1398–1401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tesio L (2004) Measurement in clinical vs. biological medicine: the Rasch model as a bridge on a widening gap. J Appl Meas 4:362–366Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feinstein AR (1987) Clinimatrics. University Press, YaleGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tesio L (2003) Outcome research in rehabilitation: variable construction, trial design and statistical inference. In: Soroker N, Ring H (Eds) Advances in physical and rehabilitation medicine. Monduzzi Editore, Bologna, pp 449–505Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tesio L, Granger CV, Fiedler R (1997) A unidimensional pain-disability scale for low back pain syndromes. Pain 69:269–278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tsuji T, Sonoda S, Domen K et al (1995) ADL structure for stroke patients in Japan based on the functional independence measure. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 6:432–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hajiro T, Nishimura K, Tsukino M et al (1998) Analysis of clinical methods used to evaluate dyspnoea in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 4:1185–1189Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Criteria Committee NYHA (1964) In: diseases of the heart and blood vessels: nomenclature and criteria for diagnosis. Little Brosn & Co Inc, Boston, MA, p 114Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tesio L (2003) Measuring a person’s behaviors and perceptions: rasch analysis as a tool for rehabilitation research. J Rehabil Med 35:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tesio L, Franchignoni FP, Battaglia MA, Perucca L (1997) Quality assessment of FIM (functional independence measure) ratings through rasch analysis. Eur Med Phys 33:69–78Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rasch G (1960) Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bond TG, Fox CM (2001) Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wright BD, Stone MH (1979) Best test design. Rasch measurement. MESA Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wright BD, Masters GN (1982) Rating scale analysis. Rasch measurement. MESA Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Andrich D (1998) Rasch models for measurement. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Penta M, Arnould C, Decrunayère C (2005) Développer et interpréter une échelle de mesure. Applications du modèle de Rasch. Pierre Margada éditeur, LiègeGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tesio L, Valsecchi MR, Sala M et al (2002) Level of activity in profound/severe mental retardation (LAPMER): a rasch-derived scale of disability. J Appl Meas 1:50–84Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tennant A, Penta M, Tesio L et al (2004) Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through differential item functioning within the framework of the rasch model: the PRO-ESOR project. Med Care 42:I37–I48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Franchignoni FP, Tesio L, Martino MT et al (1998) Length of stay of stroke rehabilitation inpatients: prediction through the functional independence measure. Ann Ist Sup San 4:463–467Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tesio L, Granger CV, Perucca L et al (2002) The FIM™ instrument in the United States and Italy: a comparative study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 81:168–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Tesio
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of MilanMilan
  2. 2.Clinical Unit and Laboratory of Research of Neuromotor RehabilitationItalian Auxologic InstituteMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations