Post-acute Care and Rehabilitation
Original Study
Measurement Properties of the Barthel Index in Geriatric Rehabilitation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2018.09.033Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

The Barthel index (BI) is a widely used observer-based instrument to measure physical function. Our objective is to assess the structural validity, reliability, and interpretability of the BI in the geriatric rehabilitation setting.

Design

Two studies were performed. First, a prospective cohort study was performed in which the attending nurses completed the BI at admittance and discharge (n = 207). At discharge, patients rated their change in physical function on a 5-point Likert rating scale. To assess the internal structure of the BI, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed. Unidimensionality was defined by comparative fit index and Tucker-Lewis index of >0.95, and root mean square error of approximation of <0.06. To evaluate interpretability, floor/ceiling effects and the minimal important change (MIC) were assessed. Predictive modeling was used to calculate the MIC. The MIC was defined as going home and minimal patient-reported improvement defined as slightly or much improved physical function, which served as anchors to obtain a clinical- and patient-based MIC. A second group of 37 geriatric rehabilitation patients were repeatedly assessed by 2 attending nurses to assess reliability of the BI. The intraclass correlation coefficient, standard error of measurement, and smallest detectable change were calculated.

Setting and Participants

Patients receiving inpatient geriatric rehabilitation admitted to 11 Dutch nursing homes (n = 244).

Results

Confirmatory factor analysis showed partly acceptable fit of a unidimensional model (comparative fit index 0.96, Tucker-Lewis index 0.95, and root mean square error of approximation 0.12). The clinical-based MIC was 3.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0–4.2] and the patient-based MIC was 3.6 (95% CI 2.8–4.3). The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.96 (95% CI 0.93–0.98). The standard error of measurement and smallest detectable change were 1.1 and 3.0 points, respectively.

Conclusions/Implications

The structural validity, reliability, and interpretability of the BI are considered sufficient for measuring and interpreting changes in physical function of geriatric rehabilitation patients.

Section snippets

Methods

We studied 2 similar groups of geriatric rehabilitation patients to evaluate the measurement properties of the BI. Data collection took place between June 2016 and June 2017. The Medical Ethics Committee of the VU University Medical Center approved the study with a waiver of informed consent (FWA00017598).

Study 1

In study 1, 207 patients were included with a mean age of 80 years and 42% was male. The median length of stay was 35 days (Table 1, Figure 1).

Discussion

Our study expanded the evidence regarding the structural validity, reliability, and interpretation of changes in BI-scores in individual geriatric rehabilitation patients. The BI possesses sufficient measurement properties for clinical application in geriatric rehabilitation. The shorter 5-item version of the BI seems to perform less well than the original BI.

Two out of 3 fit indices showed that the structural validity of the BI was sufficient (ie, it measures 1 construct in the setting of

Conclusions/Relevance

Our results demonstrated that the BI is suitable to measure changes in physical function of individual geriatric rehabilitation patients, irrespective of their clinical condition. The BI is, therefore, suitable to be clinically applied as a general measure of physical function of inpatient geriatric rehabilitation patients. The results indicate the measurement properties, which were previously unknown in this setting, namely the reliability when used by untrained nursing assistants, and

Acknowledgments

We thank Ms S Keyner for her contribution in the data collection.

References (40)

  • T.J. Quinn et al.

    Functional assessment in older people

    BMJ

    (2011)
  • S. Pinedo et al.

    Rehabilitation efficiency and destination on discharge after stroke

    Eur J Phys Rehabil Med

    (2014)
  • L. De Wit et al.

    Long-term prediction of functional outcome after stroke using single items of the Barthel index at discharge from rehabilitation centre

    Disabil Rehabil

    (2014)
  • J.C. Hobart et al.

    The five item Barthel index

    J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry

    (2001)
  • I.P. Hsueh et al.

    Comparison of the psychometric characteristics of the functional independence measure, 5 item Barthel index, and 10 item Barthel index in patients with stroke

    J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry

    (2002)
  • C.A.C. Prinsen et al.

    COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures

    Qual Life Res

    (2018)
  • N. González et al.

    Psychometric characteristics of the Spanish version of the Barthel index

    Aging Clin Exp Res

    (2018)
  • K. Laake et al.

    The Barthel ADL index: Factor structure depends upon the category of patient

    Age Ageing

    (1995)
  • A. Sainsbury et al.

    Reliability of the Barthel index when used with older people

    Age Ageing

    (2005)
  • L. Duffy et al.

    Reliability (inter-rater agreement) of the Barthel Index for assessment of stroke survivors: Systematic review and meta-analysis

    Stroke

    (2013)
  • Cited by (109)

    • Efficacy of Therapeutic Exercise on Activities of Daily Living and Cognitive Function Among Older Residents in Long-term Care Facilities: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

      2023, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Citation Excerpt :

      Group interventions aimed at improving function require narrowing down the target population and interventions according to functional abilities,58 and novel intervention methods may be needed.59–61 ADL change scores associated with the minimal clinically important difference62 were 17 for the motor FIM, and BI score (0-20 scale) associated with the minimally important change63 was 3.1; these scores were for stroke and geriatric rehabilitation, respectively. The improvement value of the present results was relatively smaller than these values.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

    View full text