Development of an Index of Physical Functional
Health Status in Rehabilitation

This section is compiled by Frank M. Painter, D.C.
Send all comments or additions to:   Frankp@chiro.org

FROM:   Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002 (May); 83 (5): 655–665

OPEN ACCESS

---

Hart DL, Wright BD

Focus On Therapeutic Outcomes, Inc, White Stone, VA 22578-2403, USA. dsailhart@rivnet.net

---

OBJECTIVE:   To describe (1) the development of an index of physical functional health status (FHS) and (2) its hierarchical structure, unidimensionality, reproducibility of item calibrations, and practical application. DESIGN: Rasch analysis of existing data sets.

SETTING:   A total of 715 acute, orthopedic outpatient centers and 62 long-term care facilities in 41 states participating with Focus On Therapeutic Outcomes, Inc. PATIENTS: A convenience sample of 92,343 patients (40% male; mean age +/- standard deviation [SD], 48+/-17y; range, 14-99y) seeking rehabilitation between 1993 and 1999.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:   Patients completed self-report health status surveys at admission and discharge. The Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey's physical functioning scale (PF-10) is the foundation of the physical FHS. The Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire, Neck Disability Index, Lysholm Knee Questionnaire, items pertinent to patients with upper-extremity impairments, and items pertinent to patients with more involved neuromusculoskeletal impairments were cocalibrated into the PF-10.

RESULTS:   The final FHS item bank contained 36 items (patient separation, 2.3; root mean square measurement error, 5.9; mean square +/- SD infit, 0.9+/-0.5; outfit, 0.9+/-0.9). Analyses supported empirical item hierarchy, unidimensionality, reproducibility of item calibrations, and content and construct validity of the FHS-36.

CONCLUSIONS:   Results support the reliability and validity of FHS-36 measures in the present sample. Analyses show the potential for a dynamic, computer-controlled, adaptive survey for FHS assessment applicable for group analysis and clinical decision making for individual patients.

Return to OUTCOME ASSESSMENT

Since 11-30-2004