請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/55267
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 薛漪平(I-Ping Hsueh) | |
dc.contributor.author | Ya-Chen Lee | en |
dc.contributor.author | 李雅珍 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T03:54:00Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2018-03-12 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2015-03-12 | |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2015-01-05 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 薛漪平 (2011)。生理疾病職能治療學: 評估理論與技巧 (初版 ed.)。台北: 禾楓書局有限公司。
Aaronson, N., Alonso, J., Burnam, A., Lohr, K. N., Patrick, D. L., Perrin, E., . . . Tru, Sci Advisory Comm Med Outcomes. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11, 193-205. Ainsworth, B. E., Caspersen, C. J., Matthews, C. E., Masse, L. C., Baranowski, T., & Zhu, W. (2012). Recommendations to improve the accuracy of estimates of physical activity derived from self report. Journal of Physical Activity Health, 9 Suppl 1, S76-84. Alaszewski, H., Alaszewski, A., Potter, J., Penhale, B., & Billings, J. (2003). Life after stroke: Reconstructing everyday life. Ken, UK: University of Kent. Albanese, M. A., Clarke, W. R., Adams, H. P., Woolson, R. F., Bendixen, B. H., Davis, P. H., . . . Marler, J. R. (1994). Ensuring Reliability of Outcome Measures in Multicenter Clinical-Trials of Treatments for Acute Ischemic Stroke - the Program Developed for the Trial of Org-10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (Toast). Stroke, 25, 1746-1751. Andresen, E. M. (2000). Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81, S15-20. Atkinson, G., & Nevill, A. M. (1998). Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Medicine, 26, 217-238. Baker, K., Cano, S. J., & Playford, E. D. (2011). Outcome measurement in stroke: a scale selection strategy. Stroke, 42, 1787-1794. Balhara, Y. P., Verma, R., Sharma, S., & Mathur, S. (2012). A study of predictors of anxiety and depression among stroke patient-caregivers. Journal of Mid-life Health, 3, 31-35. Barak, S., & Duncan, P. W. (2006). Issues in selecting outcome measures to assess functional recovery after stroke. The journal of the American Society for Experiemental neuroTherapeutics, 3, 505-524. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Katz, J. N., Wright, J. G., Wells, G., Boers, M., . . . Shea, B. (2001). Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. Minimal Clinically Important Difference. Journal of Rheumatology, 28, 400-405. Beckerman, H., Roebroeck, M. E., Lankhorst, G. J., Becher, J. G., Bezemer, P. D., & Verbeek, A. L. (2001). Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness. Quality of Life Research, 10, 571-578. Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1, 307-310. Bootsma-van der Wiel, A., Gussekloo, J., de Craen, A. J., van Exel, E., Knook, D. L., Lagaay, A. M., & Westendorp, R. G. (2001). Disability in the oldest old: 'can do' or 'do do'? Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 49, 909-914. Brorsson, B., & Asberg, K. H. (1984). Katz Index of Independence in ADL - Reliability and Validity in Short-Term Care. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 16, 125-132. Chemerinski, E., Robinson, R. G., & Kosier, J. T. (2001). Improved recovery in activities of daily living associated with remission of poststroke depression. Stroke, 32, 113-117. Christiansen, C. H., Baum, C. M., & Bass-Haugen, J. (2005). Occupational therapy: Performance, participation, and well-being (Third ed.). Thorofare, NJ: Slack. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behabioural sciences (Second ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cohen, M. E., & Marino, R. J. (2000). The tools of disability outcomes research functional status measures. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81, S21-29. Collin, C., Wade, D. T., Davies, S., & Horne, V. (1988). The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. International Disability Studies, 10, 61-63. Darter, B. J., Rodriguez, K. M., & Wilken, J. M. (2013). Test-retest reliability and minimum detectable change using the K4b2: oxygen consumption, gait efficiency, and heart rate for healthy adults during submaximal walking. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84, 223-231. Daving, Y., Andren, E., Nordholm, L., & Grimby, G. (2001). Reliability of an interview approach to the Functional Independence Measure. Clinical Rehabilitation, 15, 301-310. Department of Health, Executive Yuan, R.O.C.(TAIWAN). (2011). 100年國人主要死因統計. Retrived from http://www.doh.gov.tw/CHT2006/DM/DM2_p01.aspx?class_no=25&level_no=1&doc_no=84788 Deyo, R. A., & Centor, R. M. (1986). Assessing the Responsiveness of Functional Scales to Clinical-Change - an Analogy to Diagnostic-Test Performance. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 39, 897-906. Dhamoon, M. S., Moon, Y. P., Paik, M. C., Boden-Albala, B., Rundek, T., Sacco, R. L., & Elkind, M. S. (2009). Long-term functional recovery after first ischemic stroke: the Northern Manhattan Study. Stroke, 40, 2805-2811. Dobkin, B. (1995). The economic impact of stroke. Neurology, 45, S6-9. Dombovy, M. L., Basford, J. R., Whisnant, J. P., & Bergstralh, E. J. (1987). Disability and use of rehabilitation services following stroke in Rochester, Minnesota, 1975-1979. Stroke, 18, 830-836. Donnan, G. A., Fisher, M., Macleod, M., & Davis, S. M. (2008). Stroke. Lancet, 371, 1612-1623. Donoghue, D., & Stokes, E. K. (2009). How much change is true change? The minimum detectable change of the Berg Balance Scale in elderly people. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 41, 343-346. Duncan, P. W. (1994). Stroke disability. Physical Therapy, 74, 399-407. Duncan, P. W., Lai, S. M., Bode, R. K., Perera, S., & DeRosa, J. (2003). Stroke Impact Scale-16: A brief assessment of physical function. Neurology, 60, 291-296. Duncan, P. W., Zorowitz, R., Bates, B., Choi, J. Y., Glasberg, J. J., Graham, G. D., . . . Reker, D. (2005). Management of Adult Stroke Rehabilitation Care: a clinical practice guideline. Stroke, 36, e100-143. Ekstam, L., Uppgard, B., Kottorp, A., & Tham, K. (2007). Relationship between awareness of disability and occupational performance during the first year after a stroke. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 503-511. Ellul, J., Watkins, C., & Barer, D. (1998). Estimating total Barthel scores from just three items: the European Stroke Database 'minimum dataset' for assessing functional status at discharge from hospital. Age and Ageing, 27, 115-122. Frost, M. H., Reeve, B. B., Liepa, A. M., Stauffer, J. W., & Hays, R. D. (2007). What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures? Value in Health, 10 Suppl 2, S94-S105. Gill, T. M., Robison, J. T., & Tinetti, M. E. (1998). Difficulty and dependence: two components of the disability continuum among community-living older persons. Annals of Internal Medicine, 128, 96-101. Goldszmidt, A. J., & Caplan, L. R. (2010). Stroke essentials (2nd ed.). Sudbury. Granger, C. V., & Hamilton, B. B. (1994). The Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation report of first admissions for 1992. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73, 51-55. Granger, C. V., Sherwood, C. C., & Greer, D. S. (1977). Functional Status Measures in a Comprehensive-Stroke Care-Program. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 58, 555-561. Green, J., Forster, A., & Young, J. (2001). A test-retest reliability study of the Barthel Index, the Rivermead Mobility Index, the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale and the Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients. Disability and Rehabilitation, 23, 670-676. Gresham, G. E., Fitzpatrick, T. E., & Wolf, P. A. (1975). Residual capacity in survivors of stroke: the Framingham study. New England Journal of Medicine, 293, 954. Grimby, G., Andren, E., Daving, Y., & Wright, B. (1998). Dependence and perceived difficulty in daily activities in community-living stroke survivors 2 years after stroke: a study of instrumental structures. Stroke, 29, 1843-1849. Guyatt, G., Walter, S., & Norman, G. (1987). Measuring Change over Time - Assessing the Usefulness of Evaluative Instruments. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40, 171-178. Haley, S. M., & Fragala-Pinkham, M. A. (2006). Interpreting change scores of tests and measures used in physical therapy. Physical Therapy, 86, 735-743. Hartigan, I. (2007). A comparative review of the Katz ADL and the Barthel Index in assessing the activities of daily living of older people. International Journal of Older People Nursing, 2, 204-212. Harvill, Leo M. (1991). Standard Error of Measurement. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10, 33-41. Hobart, J. C., Lamping, D. L., Freeman, J. A., Langdon, D. W., McLellan, D. L., Greenwood, R. J., & Thompson, A. J. (2001). Evidence-based measurement - Which disability scale for neurologic rehabilitation? Neurology, 57, 639-644. Hobart, J. C., Lamping, D. L., & Thompson, A. J. (1996). Evaluating neurological outcome measures: The bare essentials. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 60, 127-130. Hobart, J. C., & Thompson, A. J. (2001). The five item Barthel index. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 71, 225-230. Hoffmann, T., &McKenna, K. (2004). A survey of assistive equipment use by older people followin hospital discharge. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67, 72-82. Holbrook, A. L., Green, M. C., & Krosnick, J. A. (2003). Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires: Comparisons of respondent satisficing and social desirability response bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 79-125. Holsbeeke, L., Ketelaar, M., Schoemaker, M. M., & Gorter, J. W. (2009). Capacity, capability, and performance: different constructs or three of a kind? Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 90, 849-855. Hsieh, C. L., Hoffmann, T., Gustafsson, L., & Lee, Y. C. (2012). The diverse constructs use of activities of daily living measures in stroke randomized controlled trials in the years 2005-2009. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 44, 720-726. Hsieh, Y. W., Wang, C. H., Wu, S. C., Chen, P. C., Sheu, C. F., & Hsieh, C. L. (2007). Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the Barthel Index in stroke patients. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 21, 233-238. Hsueh, I. P., Chen, K. L., Chou, Y. T., Wang, Y. H., & Hsieh, C. L. (2013). Individual-level responsiveness of the original and short-form postural assessment scale for stroke patients. Physical Therapy, 93, 1377-1382. Hsueh, I. P., & Hsieh, C. L. (2002). Responsiveness of two upper extremity function instruments for stroke inpatients receiving rehabilitation. Clinical Rehabilitation, 16, 617-624. Hsueh, I. P., Lee, M. M., & Hsieh, C. L. (2001). Psychometric characteristics of the Barthel activities of daily living index in stroke patients. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 100, 526-532. Hsueh, I. P., Lin, J. H., Jeng, J. S., & Hsieh, C. L. (2002). Comparison of the psychometric characteristics of the Functional Independence Measure, 5 item Barthel index, and 10 item Barthel index in patients with stroke. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 73, 188-190. Huang, S. L., Hsieh, C. L., Wu, R. M., Tai, C. H., Lin, C. H., & Lu, W. S. (2011). Minimal detectable change of the timed 'up & go' test and the dynamic gait index in people with Parkinson disease. Physical Therapy, 91, 114-121. Huang, Z. S., Chiang, T. L., & Lee, T. K. (1997). Stroke prevalence in Taiwan. Findings from the 1994 National Health Interview Survey. Stroke, 28, 1579-1584. Husted, J. A., Cook, R. J., Farewell, V. T., & Gladman, D. D. (2000). Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53, 459-468. Iwarsson, S., Horstmann, V., & Sonn, U. (2009). Assessment of dependence in daily activities combined with a self-rating of difficulty. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 41, 150-156. Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10, 407-415. Jette, A. M. (1994). Physical disablement concepts for physical therapy research and practice. Physical Therapy, 74, 380-386. Jongbloed, L. (1986). Prediction of function after stroke: a critical review. Stroke, 17, 765-776. Katz. (2003). Measures of adult general functional status: The Barthel Index, Katz Index of Activities of Daily Living, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), MACTAR Patient Preference Disability Questionnaire, and Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ). Arthritis Care and Research, 49, S15-S27. Katz, Ford, A.B., Moskowitz, R.W., Jackson, B.A., & Jaffe, M.W. (1963). Then index of ADL: A standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. Journal of the American Medical Association, 185, 914-919. Kempen, G. I., Steverink, N., Ormel, J., & Deeg, D. J. (1996). The assessment of ADL among frail elderly in an interview survey: self-report versus performance-based tests and determinants of discrepancies. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 51, P254-260. Kimberlin, C. L., & Winterstein, A. G. (2008). Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 65, 2276-2284. Kirshner, B., & Guyatt, G. (1985). A methodological framework for assessing health indices. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 38, 27-36. Koh, C. L., Hsueh, I. P., Wang, W. C., Sheu, C. F., Yu, T. Y., Wang, C. H., & Hsieh, C. L. (2006). Validation of the action research arm test using item response theory in patients after stroke. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 38, 375-380. Laake, K., Laake, P., Ranhoff, A. H., Sveen, U., Wyller, T. B., & Bautz-Holter, E. (1995). The Barthel ADL index: factor structure depends upon the category of patient. Age and Ageing, 24, 393-397. Laditka, S. B., & Jenkins, C. L. (2001). Difficulty or dependency? Effects of measurement scales on disability prevalence among older Americans. Journal of Health and Social Policy, 13, 1-15. Law, M. (1987). Measurement in occupational therapy: Scientific criteria for evaluation. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54, 133-138. Law, M., & Letts, L. (1989). A Critical-Review of Scales of Activities of Daily Living. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 43, 522-528. Lawton, M. P., & Brody, E. M. (1969). Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist, 9, 179-186. Lee, Y. C., Chen, Y. M., Hsueh, I. P., Wang, Y. H., & Hsieh, C. L. (2010). The impact of stroke: insights from patients in Taiwan. Occupational Therapy International, 17, 152-158. Lewis, S. C., Dennis, M. S., O'Rourke, S. J., & Sharpe, M. (2001). Negative attitudes among short-term stroke survivors predict worse long-term survival. Stroke, 32, 1640-1645. Lin, Lin, Y. J., Liu, T. C. , Chen, C. S., & Chiu, W. T. (2007). Urbanization and Stroke Prevalence in Taiwan: Analysis of a Nationwide Survey. Journal of Urban Health, 84, 604-614. Linacre, J. M., Heinemann, A. W., Wright, B. D., Granger, C. V., & Hamilton, B. B. (1994). The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 75, 127-132. Lindmark, B., & Hamrin, E. (1988). Evaluation of Functional-Capacity after Stroke as a Basis for Active Intervention - Validation of a Modified Chart for Motor Capacity Assessment. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 20, 111-115. Lu, W. S., Wang, C. H., Lin, J. H., Sheu, C. F., & Hsieh, C. L. (2008). The minimal detectable change of the simplified stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement measure. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 40, 615-619. Mahoney, F. I., & Barthel, D. W. (1965). Functional Evaluation: The Barthel Index. Maryland State Medical Journal, 14, 61-65. Mayo, N. E., Wood-Dauphinee, S., Ahmed, S., Gordon, C., Higgins, J., McEwen, S., & Salbach, N. (1999). Disablement following stroke. Disability and Rehabilitation, 21, 258-268. McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales And Questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Michielsen, M. E., de Niet, M., Ribbers, G. M., Stam, H. J., & Bussmann, J. B. (2009). Evidence of a logarithmic relationship between motor capacity and actual performance in daily life of the paretic arm following stroke. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 41, 327-331. Miller, E. L., Murray, L., Richards, L., Zorowitz, R. D., Bakas, T., Clark, P., & Billinger, S. A. (2010). Comprehensive overview of nursing and interdisciplinary rehabilitation care of the stroke patient: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Stroke, 41, 2402-2448. Myers, A. M., Holliday, P. J., Harvey, K. A., & Hutchinson, K. S. (1993). Functional performance measures: are they superior to self-assessments? Journal of Gerontology, 48, M196-206. Novak, S., Johnson, J., & Greenwood, R. (1996). Barthel revisited: Marking guidelines work. Clinical Rehabilitation, 10, 128-134. Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd edition ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Ottenbacher, K. J., Hsu, Y., Granger, C. V., & Fiedler, R. C. (1996). The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 77, 1226-1232. Owens, P. L., Bradley, E. H., Horwitz, S. M., Viscoli, C. M., Kernan, W. N., Brass, L. M., . . . Horwitz, R. I. (2002). Clinical assessment of function among women with a recent cerebrovascular event: a self-reported versus performance-based measure. Annals of Internal Medicine, 136, 802-811. Portney, LG, & Watkins, MP. (2000). Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, 223-258. Prince, B., Makrides, L., & Richman, J. (1980). Research methodology and applied statistics. Part 2: the literature search. Physiotherapy Canada, 32, 201-206. Quinn, T. J., Dawson, J., Walters, M. R., & Lees, K. R. (2009). Functional outcome measures in contemporary stroke trials. International Journal of Stroke, 4, 200-205. Quinn, T. J., Langhorne, P., & Stott, D. J. (2011). Barthel index for stroke trials: development, properties, and application. Stroke, 42, 1146-1151. Radomski, M. V., & Latham, C. A. T. (2008). Occupational therapy for physical dysfunction. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wikins. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment test: Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research. Roach, K. E. (2006). Measurement of health outcomes: Reliability, validity and responsiveness. Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 18, 8-12. Salter, K., Jutai, J. W., Teasell, R., Foley, N. C., Bitensky, J., & Bayley, M. (2005). Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Participation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 27, 507-528. Salvador-Carulla, L., & Gasca, V. I. (2010). Defining disability, functioning, autonomy and dependency in person-centered medicine and integrated care. Int J Integr Care, 10 Suppl, e025. Schreuders, T. A. R., Roebroeck, M. E., Goumans, J., van Nieuwenhuijzen, J. F., Stijnen, T. H., & Stam, H. J. (2003). Measurement error in grip and pinch force measurements in patients with hand injuries. Physical Therapy, 83, 806-815. Schunemann, H. J., & Guyatt, G. H. (2005). Commentary--goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from? Health Services Research, 40, 593-597. Schwenk, M., Gogulla, S., Englert, S., Czempik, A., & Hauer, K. (2012). Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change of repeated sit-to-stand analysis using one body fixed sensor in geriatric patients. Physiological Measurement, 33, 1931-1946. Shah, S., Vanclay, F., & Cooper, B. (1989). Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 42, 703-709. Sijtsma, K., Emons, W. H., Bouwmeester, S., Nyklicek, I., & Roorda, L. D. (2008). Nonparametric IRT analysis of Quality-of-Life Scales and its application to the World Health Organization Quality-of-Life Scale (WHOQOL-Bref). Quality of Life Research, 17, 275-290. Sinoff, G., & Ore, L. (1997). The Barthel activities of daily living index: self-reporting versus actual performance in the old-old (> or = 75 years). Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 45, 832-836. Smith, Jr E. V. (2002). Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3, 205-231. Stochl, J., Jones, P. B., & Croudace, T. J. (2012). Mokken scale analysis of mental health and well-being questionnaire item responses: a non-parametric IRT method in empirical research for applied health researchers. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12, 74. Straat, J. H., van der Ark, L. A., & Sijtsma, K. (2014). Minimal sample size requirement for Mokken scale analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74, 809-822. Strauss, M. E., & Smith, G. T. (2009). Construct validity: advances in theory and methodology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 1-25. Tamanini, J. T., Dambros, M., D'Ancona, C. A., Palma, P. C., & Rodrigues-Netto, N., Jr. (2005). Responsiveness to the Portuguese version of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF) after stress urinary incontinence surgery. Journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology, 31, 482-489; discussion 490. Thoren-Jonsson, A. L., & Grimby, G. (2001). Ability and perceived difficulty in daily activities in people with poliomyelitis sequelae. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 33, 4-11. Truelsen, T., Begg, S., & Mathers, C. (2000). The global burden of cerebrovascular disease. Retrived from http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/bod_cerebrovasculardiseasestroke.pdf van der Ark, L. A. (2012). New developments in Mokken scale analysis in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-27. van der Ark, L.A. (2007). Mokken scale analysis in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 20, 1-19. van der Heijden, P. G., van Buuren, S., Fekkes, M., Radder, J., & Verrips, E. (2003). Unidimensionality and reliability under Mokken scaling of the Dutch language version of the SF-36. Quality of Life Research, 12, 189-198. van der Putten, J. J., Hobart, J. C., Freeman, J. A., & Thompson, A. J. (1999). Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel index and the Functional Independence Measure. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 66, 480-484. van Schuur, W. H.W. (2003). Mokken scale analysis: Between the Guttman scale and parametric item response theory. Political Analysis, 11, 139-163. Wade, D. T. (1992). Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Oxfore: Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Wade, D. T., & Collin, C. (1988). The Barthel ADL Index: a standard measure of physical disability? International Disability Studies, 10, 64-67. Wade, D. T., & Hewer, R. L. (1987). Functional abilities after stroke: measurement, natural history and prognosis. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 50, 177-182. Wallace, D., Duncan, P. W., & Lai, S. M. (2002). Comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the motor component of the Functional Independence Measure in stroke the impact of using different methods for measuring responsiveness. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55, 922-928. Wellwood, I., Dennis, M. S., & Warlow, C. P. (1995). A comparison of the Barthel Index and the OPCS disability instrument used to measure outcome after acute stroke. Age and Ageing, 24, 54-57. WHO. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization. Wilkin, D., Hallam, L., & Doggett, M. (1992). Measures of need and outcome for primary health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, L. S., Weinberger, M., Harris, L. E., Clark, D. O., & Biller, J. (1999). Development of a stroke-specific quality of life scale. Stroke, 30, 1362-1369. World Health Organization: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. (2007). Geneva: World Health Organization. WorldHealthOrganization. ( 1978). Cerebrovascular Disorders (Offset Publications): Geneva: World Health Organization. Young, N. L., Williams, J. I., Yoshida, K. K., Bombardier, C., & Wright, J. G. (1996). The context of measuring disability: does it matter whether capability or performance is measured? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49, 1097-1101. Young, N. L., & Wright, J. G. (1995). Measuring pediatric physical function. Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics, 15, 244-253. Yu, W. H., Hsueh, I. P., Hou, W. H., Wang, Y. H., & Hsieh, C. L. (2012). A comparison of responsiveness and predictive validity of two balance measures in patients with stroke. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 44, 176-180. Zou, K. H., Tuncali, K., & Silverman, S. G. (2003). Correlation and simple linear regression. Radiology, 227, 617-622. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/55267 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 背景與目的:中風後所帶來之後遺症可能導致個案在日常生活活動 (activities of daily living, ADL)執行上遭遇困難,進而影響其生活獨立自主與生活品質之維持。ADL至少包含3個層面:平常表現、自覺困難程度及執行能力。平常表現,是指個案在平常生活中實際從事ADL的獨立程度;自覺困難程度,是指個案主觀認為從事各項ADL之困難程度;執行能力,是指在標準化環境下個案執行各項ADL之能力。評量ADL之三層面可協助治療師瞭解個案在真實生活中獨立狀況,可針對個案困難部分提供諮詢或協助,有助於治療師擬定治療計畫。然而由文獻回顧發現,學術與臨床領域目前尚缺乏一個可快速施測且涵蓋完整ADL三層面之中風病人評估工具。
巴氏量表 (Barthel Index, BI)為一國內外廣泛使用之基本ADL功能評估工具。因BI具備項目精簡、良好心理計量特性及經濟實惠等優點,BI可作為發展其他ADL層面之藍圖。本研究包含四子研究,各子研究之目的為:研究1:發展自覺困難程度量表與執行能力量表,合稱為巴氏量表-補充量表 (Barthel Index-based Supplementary Scales, BI-SS);研究2:檢驗BI-SS之建構效度;研究3:檢驗BI-SS之信度;研究4:檢驗BI-SS之反應性等應用於中風病人之心理計量特性。 方法:研究1為發展BI-SS。發展BI-SS階段,共分為二步驟:第一步驟為專家訪談,建立初版之BI-SS,第二步驟為臨床實際測試,以確認項目指導語與選項是否易於個案理解與作答,並檢驗執行方式之可行性。 研究2為檢驗BI-SS之建構效度。樣本為復健部住院或門診之中風病人。所得資料使用Mokken scale之monotone homogeneity (MH)模型檢驗各層面項目之單向度 (unidimensionality)。分別計算個別項目Hi值及整組項目同質性係數H值。此外,並使用Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient (rho)檢定BI-SS與BI之關聯程度,以檢驗收斂效度。 研究3為檢驗BI-SS之信度,包含自覺困難程度量表與執行能力量表之再測信度。收案對象為門診慢性中風病人(發病至少6個月以上)。資料以組內相關係數 (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC)檢驗重複評量結果之一致性。此外,並依據ICC值計算BI-SS各層面之最小可偵測之變化值 (minimal detectable change, MDC)。 研究4為檢驗BI-SS施測於住院中風病人之反應性,包含(一)團體層級反應性,以(1)效應強度 (standardized effect size, SES);(2)標準化反應平均值 (standardized response mean, SRM);(3)配對t檢定,檢驗BI-SS之內在反應性;以BI為外在效標,計算Pearson correlation coefficient (r),檢驗BI-SS之外在反應性。(二)個別層級反應性:二量表偵測個案於入出院總分數改變超過最小可偵測變化值之人數。 結果:研究1:經二次專家小組會議及三次臨床測試後,完成BI-SS之發展。自覺困難程度量表共有10個項目,總分為20分。評估方式以口頭訪問個案為主。執行能力量表共有8個項目,總分為18分。評估方式為評估者直接觀察個案於標準環境下,使用一套評估者所準備之評估材料實際操作。 研究2:共306位中風病人參與此研究。Mokken scale之MH模型檢驗結果顯示,自覺困難程度量表10項目與執行能力量表8項目之Hi值皆大於0.3,整體H值各自都大於0.5。此外,兩量表總分各自與BI總分間的關聯程度高(分別為rho=0.78及rho=0.90)。 研究3:共84位門診中風病人完成自覺困難程度量表與執行能力量表再測信度研究。結果顯示,自覺困難程度量表與執行能力量表再測信度ICC值分別為0.78及0.97; MDC值分別為5.5及1.9分。 研究4:56位復健病房住院中風病人完成反應性研究。團體層級反應性:自覺困難程度量表與執行能力量表具中至大的內在反應性 (0.78-1.56)。此二量表總分於前後二次測量之平均分數具備統計顯著差異 (P<0.001)。外在反應性方面,個案入出院於二量表之分數變化與個案之入出院BI分數變化間之r值分別為0.23及0.61。個別層級反應性,二量表分別有25及48人之進步量超過MDC值。 討論與結論:BI-SS以原始BI項目為藍圖,加入評量自覺困難程度及執行能力兩層面。本研究所發展之BI-SS其項目指導語與選項易於個案理解與作答。BI-SS具有良好之建構效度。此外,結果證實執行能力量表使用於慢性中風病人具高度之再測信度,評估結果穩定,可重複施測於慢性中風病人。自覺困難程度量表因其隨機測量誤差較大,具中度再測信度。BI-SS用於復健病房住院中風病人具中度至高度內在反應性,可適度反應個案住院期間自覺困難程度及執行能力之變化。整體而言,BI-SS具備良好心理計量特性,其結果有助於臨床人員進行決策,並可作為療效評量。此研究結果可作為BI-SS應用於研究與臨床之實證依據。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Background: Stroke is the most common cause of disability or dependence in activities of daily living (ADL) among the elderly. Three distinct constructs of ADL measures have been proposed: actual performance, self-perceived difficulty, and ability. Assessing these three ADL constructs can be useful for identifying disability in performing ADL and thus, also for intervention planning. However, according to literatures, there is still no ADL measure that assesses all three ADL constructs simultaneously which might overlook the relationships between constructs that affect patients’ ADL functions.
The Barthel Index (BI) has been widely used in both clinical and research settings due to its advantages: it is quick and easy to administer, has sound psychometric properties, and is economical and practical to use. The BI is an appropriate instrument to be used as a basis to further develop other ADL constructs to comprehensively assess ADL functions. Objective: This dissertation aims to: (1) develop two BI-based Supplementary Scales (BI-SS), namely the Self-perceived Difficulty Scale and Ability Scale; (2) examine the construct validity of the BI-SS; (3) examine the reliability of the BI-SS; (4) investigate the responsiveness of the BI-SS in inpatients with stroke. Method: This dissertation consists of four studies. Study 1 was to develop the BI-SS. The development of the BI-SS had two stages. Stage one was to consult with experts to develop the draft version of the BI-SS. Stage two was to conduct pilot studies to examine the clarity of the administrative instructions and the feasibility of administration of the BI-SS. Study 2 was to examine the construct validity of the BI-SS. Patients undergoing outpatient or inpatient rehabilitation were recruited from the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R). The construct validity of the BI-SS was investigated using the model of monotone homogeneity of Mokken scale analysis and analyzing associations between scales. Study 3 was to investigate the test-retest reliability of the Self-perceived Difficulty Scale and the Ability Scale. One convenience samples of outpatients with chronic stroke were recruited from the PM& R. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC2, 1) were calculated to examine the extent of agreement between repeated assessments. The minimal detectable change (MDC) was also calculated to determine whether the change score of an individual patient is real at the 95% confidence level. Study 4 was to examine: (1) The group-level responsiveness, including the internal responsiveness and external responsiveness. Three indices, standardized effect size (SES), standardized response mean (SRM), and paired t test, were used to examine the internal responsiveness. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was used to examine the association between the changes in scores on both scales and the changes in scores on the BI (treat as an external criterion). (2) The individual-level responsiveness (the number of patients whose change score on the BI-SS exceeded the respectively MDC). Results: Study 1: Based on the results of expert panel discussion and pilot testing, the Self-perceived Difficulty Scale consisted of 10 items with the total score of 20. The Self-perceived Difficulty Scale was assessed with a face to face interview format. The Ability Scale had 8 items with total score ranges of 18. The Ability Scale was assessed by observing patients doing a specific ADL task with assessment tools. Study 2: A total of 306 participants participated in this study. The results showed that items in each scale of BI-SS were unidimensional (Hi ≥ 0.3). The unidimensionality of each individual scale were strong (H ≥ 0.5). The scores of both scales were highly correlated with those of the BI (rho=0.78 and 0.90, respectively) and were significantly different from each other (p<0.001). These results indicate that the BI-SS each scale assesses unique construct. Study 3: A total of 84 patients participated in the test-retest reliability of the Self-perceived Difficulty Scale and the Ability Scale. The ICC values for the Self-perceived Difficulty Scale and the Ability Scale were 0.78 and 0.97, respectively. The MDC values were 5.5 and 1.9 points. Study 4: Fifty-seven patients completed both baseline and follow-up assessments. (1) The group-level responsiveness, the internal responsiveness of the BI-SS was moderate to large (0.78-1.56). For the external responsiveness, the change in score of the both scales had weak to moderation association with that of the BI (r=0.23 and 0.61, respectively). (2) The individual-level responsiveness, the numbers of patients having change scores exceeding the MDC of the both scales were 25 and 48, respectively. Discussion and Conclusion: The BI-SS was developed from the BI as supplementary scales in order to comprehensively assess ADL functions. The BI-SS had clear and understandable instructions and overall sufficient construct validity in patients with stroke. The results of reliability studies showed that the Ability Scale had appropriated test-retest reliability and reasonable responsiveness in patients with stroke undergoing inpatient rehabilitation. Further studies are needed to minimize the random measurement error of the Self-perceived Difficulty Scale. These results provide empirical evidence of the BI-SS in assessing stroke patients’ level of difficulty and ability in performing ADL tasks. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T03:54:00Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-103-D99429002-1.pdf: 6147177 bytes, checksum: 140d5043893d2e492152fa04ddc544c7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I
摘要 II ABSTRACT V TABLE OF CONTENTS VIII List of Tables XI List of Figures XII List of Abbreviations XIV Chapter 1 Stroke 1 1.1 Etiology of stroke and Epidemiology of stroke 2 1.2 The impact of stroke and its consequence on activities of daily living (ADL) 4 1.3 Summary 6 Chapter 2 ADL constructs 8 2.1 The definition of activities of daily living (ADL) adopted in this study 8 2.2 Review of assessment construct for ADL measures 9 2.3 Summary 14 Chapter 3 Psychometric properties required for ADL measures 16 3.1 Validity 16 3.2 Reliability 18 3.3 Responsiveness 20 3.4 Summary 21 Chapter 4 Appraisal of the ADL measures 22 4.1 Common ADL measures for patients with stroke 22 4.2 An appraisal for the ADL measures 32 4.3 Summary 35 Chapter 5 Study I: Development of two Barthel Index-based Supplementary Scales for patients with stroke 36 5.1 Objective of the study 36 5.2 Method 36 5.3 Results 38 5.4 Discussion 44 5.5 Conclusion 49 Chapter 6 Study II: Examination of the construct validity of the Barthel Index-based Supplementary Scales in patients with stroke 50 6.1 Objective of the study 50 6.2 Method 50 6.3 Results 57 6.4 Discussion 59 6.5 Conclusion 65 Chapter 7 Study III: Examination of the reliability of the Barthel Index-based Supplementary Scales in patients with stroke 66 7.1 Objective of the study 66 7.2 Methods 66 7.3 Results 70 7.4 Discussion 70 7.5 Conclusion 74 Chapter 8 Study IV: Examination of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index-based Supplementary Scales in patients with stroke 76 8.1 Objective of this study 76 8.2 Methods 76 8.3 Results 81 8.4 Discussion 82 8.5 Conclusion 88 Chapter 9 Summary 89 References 91 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 巴氏量表-補充量表之發展暨應用於中風病人之心理計量特性驗證 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Development and Validation of two Barthel Index-based Supplementary Scales for Patients with Stroke | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 103-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 謝清麟(Ching-Lin Hsieh),姚開屏(Kai-PingYao),胡名霞(Ming-Hsia Hu),張彧(Yuh Jang) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 中風,日常生活活動,日常生活活動功能層面,心理計量特性, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | stroke,activities of daily living,ADL construct,psychometric properties, | en |
dc.relation.page | 131 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2015-01-05 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 醫學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 職能治療研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 職能治療學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-103-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 6 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。