MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046213366 · doi:10.1186/1471-2318-9-52

Comparing the Functional Independence Measure and the interRAI/MDS for use in the functional assessment of older adults: a review of the literature

2009· review· en· W2046213366 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Christine Glenny, Paul Stolee

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Geriatrics · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsCINAHLRehabilitationFunctional Independence MeasureMedicineMEDLINEActivities of daily livingInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthGerontologyMinimum Data SetComorbidityPhysical therapyNursingPsychiatryNursing homesPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The rehabilitation of older persons is often complicated by increased frailty and medical complexity - these in turn present challenges for the development of health information systems. Objective investigation and comparison of the effectiveness of geriatric rehabilitation services requires information systems that are comprehensive, reliable, valid, and sensitive to clinically relevant changes in older persons. The Functional Independence Measure is widely used in rehabilitation settings - in Canada this is used as the central component of the National Rehabilitation Reporting System of the Canadian Institute of Health Information. An alternative system has been developed by the interRAI consortium. We conducted a literature review to compare the development and measurement properties of these two systems. METHODS: English language literature published between 1983 (initial development of the FIM) and 2008 was searched using Medline and CINAHL databases, and the reference lists of retrieved articles. Relevant articles were summarized and charted using the criteria proposed by Streiner. Additionally, attention was paid to the ability of the two systems to address issues particularly relevant to older rehabilitation clients, such as medical complexity, comorbidity, and responsiveness to small but clinically meaningful improvements. RESULTS: In total, 66 articles were found that met the inclusion criteria. The majority of FIM articles studied inpatient rehabilitation settings; while the majority of interRAI/MDS articles focused on nursing home settings. There is evidence supporting the reliability of both instruments. There were few articles that investigated the construct validity of the interRAI/MDS. CONCLUSION: Additional psychometric research is needed on both the FIM and MDS, especially with regard to their use in different settings and with different client groups.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0370.035
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations75
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GeriatricsSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207