Original articleRasch Analysis of the Barthel Index in the Assessment of Hospitalized Older Patients After Admission for an Acute Medical Condition
Section snippets
Participants
Barthel Index data for Rasch analysis were obtained from participants who were enrolled in the exercise intervention studies reported by de Morton13 and Jones14 and colleagues. Data were collected at 2 acute care public hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. Participants were eligible for inclusion if they were a general medical patient, were 65 years or older, and were assessed within 48 hours of hospital admission. Patients were excluded if they were admitted to the hospital from a nursing home,
Results
In the trial reported by de Morton et al,13 the mean patient age was 78.9±7.5 years. Fifty-five percent were women, and the mean admission Barthel Index score (original version) was 67.3±26.1. In the trial reported by Jones et al,14 the mean patient age was 82.4±7.8 years, 57% were women, and the mean admission Barthel Index score (modified version) was 63.8±23.1. At both hospital sites, admission Barthel Index scores ranged from 0 to 100 out of a maximum possible score of 100. Barthel Index
Discussion
The Barthel Index is widely used as a method for measuring and monitoring changes in activity limitation for older medical patients in the acute care setting.21, 22 However, the results of Rasch analysis in this study indicate that the Barthel Index is not a unidimensional measure of ADL function for this patient population. More than half of the items in both the original and modified versions of the Barthel Index showed misfit to the Rasch model. Therefore, summation of Barthel Index items to
Conclusions
The results of Rasch analysis in this study indicate that the Barthel Index is not a unidimensional measure of ADL function for older acute medical patients, and, therefore, the summation of Barthel Index item scores is not valid in this patient population. In addition, many older acute medical patients have modest limitations in their ADL function, and, therefore, the Barthel Index does not have adequate scale width to accurately monitor changes in ability for these patients. An improved
Acknowledgment
We acknowledge the support of the Clinical Epidemiology and Health Service Evaluation Unit, Melbourne Health who kindly provided their data for secondary analysis in this study.
References (25)
In praise of the biometric and psychometric qualities of the Barthel Index
Physiotherapy
(1994)- et al.
Additional exercise does not change hospital or patient outcomes in older medical patients: a controlled clinical trial
Aust J Physiother
(2007) - et al.
Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation
J Clin Epidemiol
(1989) - et al.
Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index
Md State Med J
(1965) Measurement in neurological rehabilitation
(1992)Standardised assessment scales for elderly peopleReport of joint workshops of the Research Unit of the Royal College of Physicians and the British Geriatric Society
(1992)- et al.
A cross-validation of the comprehensive assessment of activities of daily living after stroke
Scand J Rehabil Med
(1999) - et al.
The Barthel Index: an ordinal score or interval level measurement?
Clin Rehabil
(1996) - et al.
Scaling the Barthel: a 10-point hierarchial version of the activities of daily living index for use with stroke patients
Clin Rehabil
(1993) - et al.
Adaption of the modified Barthel Index for use in physical medicine and rehabilitation in Turkey
Scand J Rehabil Med
(2000)
An analysis of dimensionality using factor analysis (true score theory) and Rasch measurement: what is the difference?Which method is better?
J Appl Meas
Best test design
Cited by (83)
Determinants of stroke in patients with rhino cerebral mucormycosis seen during the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic: A prospective cohort study
2022, Journal of Infection and Public HealthDifferential Effects of Time to Initiation of Therapy on Disability and Quality of Life in Patients With Mild and Moderate to Severe Ischemic Stroke
2020, Archives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationReliability and validity of the Greek adaptation of the Modified Barthel Index in neurorehabilitation patients
2024, European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation MedicineStructural validity of the Trunk Assessment Scale for Spinal Cord Injury (TASS) with Rasch analysis for individuals with spinal cord disorders
2023, Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine
Supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (Dora Lush Postgraduate Scholarship no. 280632).
No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the authors or upon any organization with which the authors are associated.