574
L. Turner-Stokes et al.
Conclusion
Our results suggest that UK FIM+FAM meets the
Rasch model expectations, confirming that it has ac-
ceptable properties as an interval scale. Further work is
required to determine whether the use of transformed
scores confers significant benefit in a clinical setting.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their thanks to all of the
patients and clinicians who contributed to the UKROC dataset.
Many thanks to Heather Williams and Keith Sephton for help
with data extraction and cleaning.
This manuscript presents independent research funded by
the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its
Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (RP-
PG-0407-10185). The views expressed in this article are those
of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR,
or the Department of Health.
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
REFERENCES
1. Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS. The Func
tional Independence Measure: a new tool for rehabilitation.
Adv Clin Rehabil 1987; 1: 6–18.
2. Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Sherwin FS, Zielezny M, Tashman
JS. A uniform national data system for medical rehabilita-
tion. In: Fuhrer JM, editor. Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis
and measurement. Baltimore: Brookes; 1987, p. 137–147.
3. Hall KM, Mann N, High WMJ, Wright J, Kreutzer JS, Wood
D. Functional measures after traumatic brain injury: ceiling
effects of FIM, FIM+FAM, DRS, and CIQ. J Head Traum
Rehabil 1996; 11: 27–39.
4. Hall KM, Hamilton BB, Gordon WA, Zasler ND. Characte-
ristics and comparisons of functional assessment indices:
Disability Rating Scale, Functional Independence Measure,
and Functional Assessment Measure. J Head Traum Rehabil
1993; 8: 60–74.
5. Linn RT, Blair RS, Granger CV, Harper DW, O’Hara PA, Ma-
ciura E. Does the Functional Assessment Measure (FAM)
extend the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) instru-
ment? A Rasch analysis of stroke inpatients. J Outcome
Meas 1999; 3: 339–359.
6. Turner-Stokes L. Outcome measures for in-patient neu-
rorehabilitation settings – a commentary. Neuropsychol
Rehabil 1999; 9: 329–343.
7. Turner-Stokes L, Nyein K, Turner-Stokes T, Gatehouse
C. The UK FIM+FAM: development and evaluation. Clin
Rehabil 1999; 13: 277–287.
8. UKROC: UK Rehabilitation Outcomes Collaborative London
2010. Available from: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/cicelysaunders/
research/studies/uk-roc/index [accessed 2019 Jun 28].
9. Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and at-
tainment tests. (Copenhagen, Danish Institute for Educational
Research). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1960.
10. Andrich D. Rasch models for measurement. Quantitative
applications in the social sciences. Andrich D, editor. Lon-
don: Sage Publications; 1988.
11. Bond TG, Fox JC. Applying the Rasch model. Fundamental
measurement in the human sciences. 2nd edn. Toledo:
University of Toledo; 2007.
12. Nayar M, Vanderstay R, Siegert RJ, Turner-Stokes L.
The UK Functional Assessment Measure (UK FIM+FAM):
psychometric evaluation in patients undergoing specialist
rehabilitation following a stroke from the National UK
Clinical Dataset. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0147288.
www.medicaljournals.se/jrm
13. Turner-Stokes L, Siegert RJ. A comprehensive psychome-
tric evaluation of the UK FIM + FAM. Disabil Rehabil 2013;
35: 1885–1895.
14. Hawley CA, Taylor R, Hellawell DJ, Pentland B. Use of the
functional assessment measure (FIM+FAM) in head injury
rehabilitation: a psychometric analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg
Psychiatr 1999; 67: 749–754.
15. Tesio L, Cantagallo A. The functional assessment measure
(FAM) in closed traumatic brain injury outpatients: a Rasch-
based psychometric study. J Outcome Meas 1998; 2: 79–96.
16. Lundgren Nilsson A, Tennant A. Past and present issues
in Rasch analysis: the functional independence measure
(FIM) revisited. J Rehabil Med 2011; 43: 884–891.
17. Medvedev O, Turner-Stokes L, Siegert RJ. Rasch analysis of
the UK Functional Assessment Measure in patients with com-
plex disability after stroke. J Rehabil Med 2018; 50: 420–428.
18. Specialist neuro-rehabilitation services: providing for patients
with complex rehabilitation needs. London: British Society of
Rehabilitation Medicine 2010 (Updated 2015). https://www.
bsrm.org.uk/downloads/specialised-neurorehabilitation-ser-
vice-standards--7-30-4-2015-pcatv2-forweb-11-5-16-an-
nexe2updatedmay2019.pdf [accessed 2019 Jun 28].
19. Turner-Stokes L, Vanderstay R, Eagar K, Dredge R, Siegert
RJ. Cost-efficient service provision in neurorehabilitation:
defining needs, costs and outcomes for people with long-
term neurological conditions: Programme grant report
(RP-PG-0407-10185). London: National Institute of Health
Research, 2015. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/cicelysaunders/
research/studies/uk-roc/index [Accessed 2019 Jun 28].
20. Turner-Stokes L, Williams H, Bill A, Bassett P, Sephton
K. Cost-efficiency of specialist inpatient rehabilitation for
working-aged adults with complex neurological disabilities:
a multicentre cohort analysis of a national clinical data set.
BMJ Open 2016; 6: e010238.
21. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural Equation
modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic
J Business Res Meth 2008; 6: 53–60.
22. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covari-
ance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Struct Equat Modell 1999; 6: 1–55.
23. Andrich D, Lyne A, Sheridan B, Luo G. RUMM 2030. Perth:
RUMM Laboratory; 2010.
24. Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD, Granger CV, Hamilton
BB. The structure and stability of the Functional Indepen-
dence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75: 127–132.
25. Müller M, Kreiner S. Item fit statistics in common software
for Rasch analysis Copenhagen, Denmark: : Department of
Biostatistics, University of Copenhagen; 2015. Available from:
https://ifsv.sund.ku.dk/biostat/annualreport/images/2/2f/
Research_Report_15-06.pdf [accessed 2019 Jun 28].
26. Hagell P, Westergren A. Sample size and statistical con-
clusions from tests of fit to the Rasch model according to
the Rasch Unidimensional Measurement Model (Rumm)
program in health outcome measurement. J Appl Meas
2016; 17: 416–431.
27. Holland P, Wainer H. Differential item functioning. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1993.
28. Turner-Stokes L, Tonge P, Nyein K, Hunter M, Nielson S,
Robinson I. The Northwick Park Dependency Score (NPDS):
a measure of nursing dependency in rehabilitation. Clin
Rehabil 1998; 12: 304–318.
29. Smith EVJ. Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidi-
mensionality using item fit statistics and principal compo-
nent analysis of residuals. J Appl Meas 2002; 3: 205–231.
30. Fan X, Thompson B, Wang L. Effects of sample size, estima-
tion methods, and model specification on structural equation
modeling fit indexes. Struct Equat Model 1999; 6: 56–83.
31. Feinstein AR. Clinimetric Perspectives. J Chron Dis 1987;
40: 635-640.
32. Medvedev ON, Krägeloh CU, Narayanan A, Siegert RJ.
Measuring mindfulness: applying generalizability theory
to distinguish between state and trait. Mindfulness 2017;
8: 1036–1046.