Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Stroke
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Published Online
on November 23, 2005

Stroke. 2005
Published online before print November 23, 2005, doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000195176.50830.b6
A more recent version of this article appeared on January 1, 2006
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
37/1/162    most recent
01.STR.0000195176.50830.b6v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by van Hartingsveld, F.
Right arrow Articles by Lindeboom, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by van Hartingsveld, F.
Right arrow Articles by Lindeboom, R.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Clinical Trials
*Stroke
Related Collections
Right arrow Exercise testing
Right arrow Exercise/exercise testing/rehabilitation

Submitted on May 6, 2005
Revised on September 23, 2005
Accepted on October 13, 2005

Improved Interpretation of Stroke Trial Results Using Empirical Barthel Item Weights

Frank van Hartingsveld MSc, PhT*; Cees Lucas PhD, PhT; Gert Kwakkel PhD, PhT; and Robert Lindeboom PhD

From the Amsterdam School of Allied Health (F.v.H.), Amsterdam; Academic Medical Center (C.L., R.L.), University of Amsterdam; and VU University Medical Center (G.K.), Amsterdam.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: F.van.Hartingsveld{at}hva.nl.

Background and Purpose--Attempts have been made to provide guidelines for interpreting Barthel scores. We used a Rasch analysis to improve the measurement properties and clinical interpretability of the Barthel index score.

Methods--A specific extension of Rasch model was used to identify items that preclude the summation of items and to improve the item rating scale by examining the scores on the Barthel of 559 stroke patients scored 3 weeks (n=89) and 6 months (n=470) after stroke. The clinical interpretation of the revised Rasch modeled Barthel was illustrated by re-examining the results of a previously published trial on the effectiveness of leg and arm training after stroke.

Results--Most rating scales could be improved by collapsing nondiscriminating rating categories. Two items showed misfit: Bladder and Bowel. The remaining Barthel showed an excellent fit to the extended Rasch model (R1c Goodness-of-Fit P=0.35). Both items and patients could be placed on a common logit unit scale, allowing a clearer interpretation of the trial effect. Using the modeled activities of daily living difficulty/ability scale, we could express the differences between treatment arms in modeled probabilities of a positive score to each Barthel item for the treatment arms not conveyed by the original ordinal Barthel sum scores.

Conclusion--We improved the psychometric properties and clinical interpretation of the Barthel index.


Key words: outcome assessment • psychometrics • stroke