Improvement Scaling (Rehabilitation Version)
A New Approach to Measuring Progress of Patients in Achieving Their Individual Rehabilitation Goals
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9104182 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Aaron Smith (0000-0001-5768-6304, University of Nevada, Reno, corresponding author), Aaron P Smith (0000-0002-5417-014X), Joseph E Cardillo (University of Nevada, Reno, corresponding author), Sharon Casey Smith, Alfredo M Amézaga (Renown Regional Medical Center) |
| Year | 1998 |
| Volume | 36 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 333-347 |
| Publication date | 1998-03-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Medical Care (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0025-7079 • E-ISSN: 1537-1948 |
| Publisher | Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1097/00005650-199803000-00010 |
| PMID | 9520958 |
| OpenAlex | W2316576154 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 15 |
OBJECTIVES: Accurate measurement of clinically relevant change in individual patients undergoing rehabilitation has been an elusive goal. Simple, clinically meaningful, patient-centered measures of individual patient change are urgently needed. The purpose of this research was the development and testing of Improvement Scaling (Rehabilitation Version)(IMS), a new approach to measuring the progress that rehabilitation patients make during treatment. METHODS: Research and clinical staff developed the 65 IMS scales and applied them to all admissions to an an inpatient rehabilitation unit. Date were collected on 292 consecutively admitted rehabilitation patients who were aged 50 or older. An Improvement Score indicates the degree to which each patient achieves the expected level of outcome on his or her unique set of IMS goals. Improvement scores were compared to Goal Attainment Scores and to scores from more traditional measures. Interrater reliability was assessed. RESULTS: IMS scores correlated r = .78 with comparable Goal Attainment Scores. IMS and Goal Attainment Scores had the same pattern of correlations with other measures. Interrater reliability of IMS scores was r = .91. CONCLUSIONS: IMS appears to be a practical, reliable, valid, and clinically useful technique for measuring individual patient change. What is needed now is replication and more information on factors which may influence IMS scores. Versions of IMS are being developed for home health care and mental health. Applications of IMS for quality assurance, quality improvement, and documentation of patient change for third parties is discussed
Developmental psychology · Documentation · Goal Attainment Scaling · Goal setting · Health care · Inter-rater reliability · Operations management · Physical medicine and rehabilitation · Physical therapy · Quality (philosophy) · Quality assurance · Quality management · Rating scale · Reliability (semiconductor) · Set (abstract data type) · Clinical practice guidelines implementation · Computer Science · Health Policy Implementation Science · Medicine · Occupational Therapy Practice and Research · Psychology · Rehabilitation
Barriers to the Use of Health Status Measures in Clinical Investigation, Patient Care, and Policy Research
Generic and Disease-Specific Measures in Assessing Health Status and Quality of Life
Advances in Health Status Assessment
Rehabilitation Care and Outcomes from the Patient's Perspective
Effect Sizes for Interpreting Changes in Health Status
Training in the use of Goal Attainment Scaling
"How we should measure "change
| Citations per year | 0.07 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 1998 - 2005 (8) |
| Highly cited | No |