This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Franchignoni, F. Articles by Ottonello, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Franchignoni, F. Articles by Ottonello, M. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Psychometric properties of the Rivermead Mobility Index in Italian stroke rehabilitation inpatients

Rehabilitation Institute of Veruno (NO), Unit of Occupational Rehabilitation and Ergonomics, IRCCS, Italy

Luigi Tesio

Rehabilitation Institute of Pavia, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine and the Unit of Research, Functional Assessment and Quality Assurance in Rehabilitation, IRCCS, Italy

Emilio Benevoloand

Marcella Ottonello

Rehabilitation Institute of Genoa-Nervi, ‘Salvatore Maugeri’ Foundation, Clinica del Lavoro e della Riabilitazione, IRCCS, Italy

Objective: To examine the internal consistency, validity, responsiveness and test scalability of the Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) in Italian rehabilitation inpatients recovering from stroke.

Design: Seventy-three stroke inpatients undergoing rehabilitation were assessed at admission (T₀) and five weeks later (T₁), using RMI, the motor (motFIM) and cognitive (cognFIM) subscales of the Functional Independence Measure, the ‘leg’ section of the Motricity Index and Trunk Control Test.

Results: Cronbach's alpha of the RMI was 0.92. The item-to-total correlation coefficients (r_rb) ranged from 0.36 to 0.83, all p < 0.003. All correlations between RMI scores and the other instruments, both at T₀ and T₁, were statistically significant (r ³ 0.49, all p < 0.0001), except those with cognFIM. The difference in RMI scores over the testing period was statistically significant (sign test: z = 7.1, p < 0.0001) and the effect size was 0.89. The coefficient of reproducibility was 0.95 at T₀ and 0.93 at T₁, and both coefficients of scalability were 0.67.

Conclusions: The study confirms the internal consistency, construct validity and responsiveness of the RMI, according to the classic psychometric indexes. However, some minor concerns arise regarding: (a) a floor effect of RMI in subacute rehabilitation stroke inpatients at admission and; (b) one item (‘bathing’) that seems sensitive to cultural and environmental factors. Moreover, even though RMI met the scaling criteria, the item hierarchy is not coincident with the one originally postulated. So, RMI should be considered only as a summated index with ordinal properties, and not a hierarchically ranked scale.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?