Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement
Clinical Rehabilitation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Yeo, D.
Right arrow Articles by Lincoln, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Yeo, D.
Right arrow Articles by Lincoln, N.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Barthel ADL Index: a comparison of administration methods

D. Yeo

Stroke Research Unit, Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust, Nottingham

R. Faleiro

Stroke Research Unit, Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust, Nottingham

NB Lincoln

Stroke Research Unit, Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust, Nottingham

The Barthel ADL Index is routinely used to assess elderly patients after discharge from hospital. Its inter-rater reliability and criterion validity have been well established. However, the inter-method reliability in administering this scale has not been sufficiently documentated. This study compares post, telephone and interview (visit) methods of administration to investigate their agreement. The index was administered by the three methods in random order after patients were discharged from acute geriatric wards. Results suggest that these three methods are reliable and agree well with each other in the total scores obtained. Analyses of individual item scores indicate poor agreement on one item (stairs). Suggestions on improving the guidelines for this item are outlined.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 9, No. 1, 34-39 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/026921559500900105
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Clin RehabilHome page
J. Carter, F. Mant, J. Mant, D. Wade, and S. Winner
Comparison of postal version of the Frenchay Activities Index with interviewer-administered version for use in people with stroke
Clinical Rehabilitation, May 1, 1997; 11(2): 131 - 138.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin RehabilHome page
K. Hachisuka, H. Ogata, H. Ohkuma, S. Tanaka, and K. Dozono
Test-retest and inter-method reliability of the self-rating Barthel Index
Clinical Rehabilitation, February 1, 1997; 11(1): 28 - 35.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Advertisement