Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research

Comprehensive rehabilitation outcome measurement scale (CROMS): development and preliminary validation of an interdisciplinary measure for rehabilitation outcomes

Authors: Muhammed Rashid, Sandeep Padantaya Harish, Jerin Mathew, Akshaiya Kalidas, Kavitha Raja

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Comprehensive and interdisciplinary measurement of rehabilitation outcome is an essential part of the assessment and prognosis of a patient. Thus, this requires substantial contributions from the patient, their family and the rehabilitation professional working with them. Moreover, the measurement tool should be comprehensive and must consider the cultural compatibility, cost efficiency and contextual factors of the region.

Methods

The Comprehensive Rehabilitation Outcome Measurement Scale (CROMS) was developed through consensus and followed the Delphi process incorporating inputs from various rehabilitation professionals. The domains and items were finalized using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The tool was validated in two native languages and back-translated considering the semantic equivalence of the scale. Intra-class correlation coefficient was performed to determine the agreement between the therapist and patient-reported scales.

Results

The final CROMS carries 32 comprehensive items that can be completed by the person with disability and the professional team. CROMS compares well to similar items on FIM (l ICC of 0.93) and has good internal consistency with a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.92 for both patient and therapist reported measures.

Conclusions

The 32 item CROMS is a tool that can potentially be used to evaluate the functional independence of various patient populations, predominantly patients with neurological disabilities.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Agarwal B, Aglawe D, Sawant B. Physical function assessment tools in the intensive care unit: a narrative review. Crit Rev. 2022;34(1):55.
2.
Barskova T, Wilz G. Interdependence of stroke survivors’ recovery and their relatives’ attitudes and health: a contribution to investigating the causal effects. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29(19):1481–91.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Baumann LA, Baker J, Elshaug AG. The impact of electronic health record systems on clinical documentation times: a systematic review. Health Policy. 2018;122(8):827–36.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health. 2018;6(149):555.
5.
Bujang MA. A simplified guide to determination of sample size requirements for estimating the value of intraclass correlation coefficient: a review. Arch Orofac Sci. 2017;12:1–11.
6.
Cardol M, Jong BD, Ward CD. On autonomy and participation in rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(18):970–4.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Chiarotto A, Ostelo RW, Boers M, Terwee CB. A systematic review highlights the need to investigate the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures for physical functioning in patients with low back pain. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;95:73–93.PubMedCrossRef
8.
9.
Clapton J, Kendall E. Autonomy and participation in rehabilitation: time for a new paradigm? Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(18):987–91.CrossRef
10.
Diekmann R, Wojzischke J. The role of nutrition in geriatric rehabilitation. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2018;21(1):14–8.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Dunn D. The social psychology of disability. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.
12.
Fischer R, Poortinga YH. Addressing methodological challenges in culture-comparative research. J Cross Cult Psychol. 2018;49(5):691–712.CrossRef
13.
Frost JC, Baldwin AJ. “Food for thought”: the importance of nutrition to patient care and the role of the junior doctor. Clin Med (Lond). 2021;21(3):e272–4.PubMedCrossRef
14.
George D, Mallery P. IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step: a simple guide and reference. London: Routledge; 2019.CrossRef
15.
16.
Glenny C, Stolee P. Comparing the functional independence measure and the interRAI/MDS for use in the functional assessment of older adults: a review of the literature. BMC Geriatr. 2009;9:52–52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Gooden-Ledbetter MJ, Cole MT, Maher JK, Condeluci A. Self-efficacy and interdependence as predictors of life satisfaction for people with disabilities: implications for independent living programs. J Vocat Rehabil. 2007;27(3):153–61.
18.
Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD. Performance profiles of the functional independence measure. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;72(2):84–9.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Greenhalgh J, Long AF, Flynn R, Tyson S. “It’s hard to tell”: the challenges of scoring patients on standardised outcome measures by multidisciplinary teams: a case study of neurorehabilitation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8(1):217.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
21.
Halek M, Holle D, Bartholomeyczik S. Development and evaluation of the content validity, practicability and feasibility of the Innovative dementia-oriented assessment system for challenging behaviour in residents with dementia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):554.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Harada A, Kawai N, Ogawa T, Hatakeyama T, Tamiya T. Long-term multidisciplinary rehabilitation efficacy in older patients after traumatic brain injury: assessed by the functional independence measure. Acta Med Okayama. 2021;75(4):479–86.PubMed
23.
Hawkins KA, Clark DJ, Balasubramanian CK, Fox EJ. Walking on uneven terrain in healthy adults and the implications for people after stroke. Neuro Rehabil. 2017;41(4):765–74.
24.
Hawkins RJ. Recommendations for evaluating and selecting appropriately valued outcome measures. Instr Course Lect. 2016;65:587–91.PubMed
25.
Hepworth LR, Rowe FJ. Using Delphi methodology in the development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for stroke survivors with visual impairment. Brain Behav. 2018;8(2):e00898.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
Hsueh IP, Lin JH, Jeng JS, Hsieh CL. Comparison of the psychometric characteristics of the functional independence measure, 5 item Barthel index, and 10 item Barthel index in patients with stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002;73(2):188–90.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Jette AM, Haley SM, Ni P. Comparison of functional status tools used in post-acute care. Health Care Financ Rev. 2003;24(3):13–24.PubMedPubMedCentral
28.
29.
Kashif M, Jones S, Darain H, Iram H, Raqib A, Butt AA. Factors influencing the community integration of patients following traumatic spinal cord injury: a systematic review. J Pakistan Med Assoc. 2019;69(9):1337–43.
30.
31.
Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
Kushner DS, Peters KM, Johnson-Greene D. Evaluating use of the Siebens Domain Management Model during inpatient rehabilitation to increase functional independence and discharge rate to home in stroke patients. PM&R. 2015;7(4):354–64.CrossRef
33.
Kinney LC. Standardization of interdisciplinary clinical practice and assessment in stroke rehabilitation. Int J Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;01(08):5558.CrossRef
34.
Lamper C, Beckers L, Kroese M, Verbunt J, Huijnen I. Interdisciplinary care networks in rehabilitation care for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2021;10(9):2041.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
35.
Lau D, Kasper J, Hauser J, Berdes C, Chang C-H, Berman R, Masin-Peters J, Paice J, Emanuel L. "Family caregiver skills in medication management for hospice patients: a qualitative study to define a construct. J Gerontol Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2009;64:799–807.
36.
Laukkanen P, Leskinen E, Kauppinen M, Sakari R, Heikkinen E. Health and functional capacity as predictors of community dwelling among older people. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:257–65.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Lichterfeld-Kottner A, El Genedy M, Lahmann N, Blume-Peytavi U, Büscher A, Kottner J. Maintaining skin integrity in the aged: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;103:103509.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Liu P, Lyndon A, Holl JL, Johnson J, Bilimoria KY, Stey AM. Barriers and facilitators to interdisciplinary communication during consultations: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(9):e046111.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
Lorkowski J, Maciejowska-Wilcock I, Pokorski M. Overload of medical documentation: a disincentive for healthcare professionals. Med Res Innov. 2021;2:1–10.
40.
Maher C, Latimer J, Costa L. The relevance of cross-cultural adaptation and clinimetrics for physical therapy instruments. Revista Brasileira de Fisioterapia. 2007;11(4):7788.
41.
Mayo-Wilson E, Fusco N, Li T, Hong H, Canner JK, Dickersin K. Multiple outcomes and analyses in clinical trials create challenges for interpretation and research synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;86:39–50.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Momsen AM, Rasmussen JO, Nielsen CV, Iversen MD, Lund H. Multidisciplinary team care in rehabilitation: an overview of reviews. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(11):901–12.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Moore JL, Potter K, Blankshain K, Kaplan SL, O’Dwyer LC, Sullivan JE. A core set of outcome measures for adults with neurologic conditions undergoing rehabilitation: a clinical practice guideline. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2018;42(3):174.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
Murphy KR, Davidshofer CO. Psychological testing. London: Englewood Cliffs; 1988.
45.
46.
O’Sullivan SB, Schmitz TJ, Fulk G. Physical rehabilitation. New York: FA Davis; 2019.
47.
Organization, W. H. (2007). International classification of functioning, disability, and health: children & youth version: ICF-CY, World Health Organization.
48.
49.
50.
51.
Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. London: Pearson/Prentice Hall; 2009.
52.
Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. New York: Pearson; 2013.
53.
Quinn TJ, Dawson J, Walters MR, Lees KR. Reliability of the modified Rankin Scale: a systematic review. Stroke. 2009;40(10):3393–5.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Raja K, Girish S, Gupta S, Mathew J, Ganasan V. Assessment battery for children with developmental coordination disorder (ABCD): preliminary report of tool development and clinical application. J Pediatric Rehabil Med. 2018;11(3):175–85.CrossRef
55.
Raja K, Gupta S, Mathew J, Rao P. Development of training manuals for community disability workers. Physiother J Indian Assoc Physiother. 2020;14(1):37.CrossRef
56.
Raja K, Mathew J, Bista B. Generic work capacity assessment tool for working conditions in India: Preliminary results of development and standardization. Int J Health Allied Sci. 2017;6(2):99–99.
57.
Rantz MJ, Popejoy L, Zwygart-Stauffacher M, Wipke-Tevis D, Grando VT. Minimum data set and resident assessment instrument can using standardized assessment improve clinical practice and outcomes of care? J Gerontol Nurs. 1999;25(6):35–43 (quiz 54-35).PubMedCrossRef
58.
Rashid M, Mathew J, Raja K. Alteration in ankle kinematics during uneven surface ambulation in stroke survivors: an exploratory observational study. Int J Health Allied Sci. 2020;9(3):263.CrossRef
59.
Rashid M, Mathew J, Raja K. Stance phase kinematics in ankle joint during ambulation on uneven surface: a comparison between stroke survivors and typical adults. Disabil CBR Incl Dev. 2020;31(3):668.
60.
Rathore FA, Arif A. The impact of interdisciplinary spinal cord injury rehabilitation on improving neurological outcomes. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Sage; 2021. p. 817–8.
61.
Räty S, Aromaa A, Koponen P. Measurement of physical functioning in comprehensive national health surveys-ICF as a framework National Public Health Institute, KTL. Department of Health and Functional Capacity (2003).
62.
Ravaud JF, Delcey M, Yelnik A. Construct validity of the functional independence measure (FIM): questioning the unidimensionality of the scale and the “value” of FIM scores. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1999;31(1):31–41.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Rogers JC, Green Gwinn SM, Holm MB. Comparing activities of daily living assessment instruments: FIM™, MDS, OASIS, MDS-PAC. Phys Occup Ther Geriatr. 2001;18(3):1–25.
64.
Shultz S, Olszewski A, Ramsey O, Schmitz M, Wyatt V, Cook C. A systematic review of outcome tools used to measure lower leg conditions. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2013;8(6):838–48.PubMedPubMedCentral
65.
Spier ET. 45 - Community reentry. In: Eapen BC, Cifu DX, editors. Brain injury medicine. St. Louis (MO): Elsevier; 2021. p. 294- 298.e292.CrossRef
66.
Stewart D, Gibson-Smith K, MacLure K, Mair A, Alonso A, Codina C, Cittadini A, Fernandez-Llimos F, Fleming G, Gennimata D, Gillespie U, Harrison C, Junius-Walker U, Kardas P, Kempen T, Kinnear M, Lewek P, Malva J, McIntosh J, Scullin C, Wiese B. A modified Delphi study to determine the level of consensus across the European Union on the structures, processes and desired outcomes of the management of polypharmacy in older people. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(11):e0188348.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
67.
Streiner DL. Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess. 2003;80(1):99–103.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Stucki G, Ewert T, Cieza A. Value and application of the ICF in rehabilitation medicine. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(17):932–8.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Taber KS. The use of Cronbach’s Alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res Sci Educ. 2018;48(6):1273–96.CrossRef
70.
Teasell R, Salbach NM, Foley N, Mountain A, Cameron JI, Jong AD, Acerra NE, Bastasi D, Carter SL, Fung J. Canadian stroke best practice recommendations: rehabilitation, recovery, and community participation following stroke. Part one: rehabilitation and recovery following stroke; Update 2019. Int J Stroke. 2020;15(7):763–88.PubMedCrossRef
71.
Tyson BT, Pham MT, Brown NT, Mayer TR. Patient safety considerations in the rehabilitation of the individual with cognitive impairment. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2012;23(2):315–34.PubMedCrossRef
72.
73.
van der Putten JJ, Hobart JC, Freeman JA, Thompson AJ. Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel index and the Functional Independence Measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999;66(4):480–4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
74.
Velentgas P, Dreyer NA, Nourjah P, Smith SR, Torchia MM (2013) AHRQ methods for effective health care. Developing a Protocol for Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research: A User's Guide. . Rockville (MD), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US)
75.
Copyright © 2013, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
76.
Waggoner J, Carline JD, Durning SJ. Is there a consensus on consensus methodology? Descriptions and recommendations for future consensus research. Acad Med. 2016;91(5):663–8.PubMedCrossRef
77.
Wagle KC, Skopelja EN, Campbell NL. Caregiver-based interventions to optimize medication safety in vulnerable elderly adults: a systematic evidence-based review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018;66(11):2128–35.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
78.
79.
Wells JL, Egan M, Byrne K, Jaglal S, Dumbrell AC, Stolee P. Uses of the national rehabilitation reporting system: perspectives of geriatric rehabilitation clinicians. Can J Occup Ther. 2009;76(4):294–8.PubMedCrossRef
80.
White GW, Lloyd Simpson J, Gonda C, Ravesloot C, Coble Z. Moving from independence to interdependence: a conceptual model for better understanding community participation of centers for independent living consumers. J Disabil Policy Stud. 2010;20(4):233–40.CrossRef
81.
Yang W, Houtrow A, Cull DS, Annaswamy TM. Quality and outcome measures for medical rehabilitation. Braddom’s Phys Med Rehabil. 2021;100–114:e102.
Metadata
Title
Comprehensive rehabilitation outcome measurement scale (CROMS): development and preliminary validation of an interdisciplinary measure for rehabilitation outcomes
Authors
Muhammed Rashid
Sandeep Padantaya Harish
Jerin Mathew
Akshaiya Kalidas
Kavitha Raja
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02048-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2022 Go to the issue

Research

Cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Kinyarwanda version of the diabetes-39 (D-39) questionnaire

Research

Feasibility and acceptability of electronic EQ-5D-5L for routine measurement of HRQOL in patients with chronic musculoskeletal problems in Hong Kong primary care

Research

Health-related quality of life and influencing factors in drug addicts based on the scale QLICD-DA: a cross-sectional study

Research

Comparing the psychometric properties of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L proxy ratings by informal caregivers and a health professional for people with dementia

Correction

Correction to: Health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients: review of reviews from 2008 to 2018

Research

Health-related quality of life among older adults who experienced the Pohang earthquake in South Korea: A cross-sectional survey