Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine

Korean Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (대한재활의학회)
권호 표지

Development of the Korean Version of Modified Barthel Index (K-MBI): Multi-center Study for Subjects with Stroke

한글판 수정바델지수(K-MBI)의 개발: 뇌졸중 환자 대상의 다기관 연구

Jung, Han-Young;Park, Byung-Kyu;Shin, Hee-Suk;Kang, Yoon-Kyoo;Pyun, Sung-Bom;Paik, Nam-Jong;Kim, See-Hyun;Kim, Tae-Hyun;Han, Tai-Ryoon
정한영;박병규;신희석;강윤규;편성범;백남종;김세현;김태현;한태륜

  • Published : 2007.06.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To develop a Korean version of Modified Barthel Index (K-MBI) for subjects with stroke and to test the reliability and validity of K-MBI. Method: Six senior physiatrists translated the 5th version of MBI into K-MBI and we administered K-MBI to 30 subjects with stroke. Fifteen different examiners working at the 5 different university hospitals evaluated video-recorded examination cases independently to test the reliability and validity of K-MBI. We analyzed intra- and inter-rater reliabilities of the K-MBI by the Kendall's coefficient of concordance and Spearman's correlation coefficients, respectively. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used for assessing internal consistency of the K-MBI and Spearman's correlation between the K-MBI and Brunnström stage was employed to evaluate the validity of the K-MBI. Results: The intra-rater reliabilities of physiatrists, resident physicians of rehabilitation medicine and occupational therapists were 0.93∼1.00, 0.87∼0.99, and 0.97∼1.00 (p＜ 0.01), respectively. The inter-rater reliabilities were 0.93∼0.98 (p＜0.01) and Cronbach's alpha was 0.84 (p＜0.01) as the internal consistency reliability of K-MBI. For construct validation study, each item of K-MBI had significant correlation with total score of K-MBI (r=0.54∼0.78, p＜ 0.01). Conclusion: The K-MBI is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring functional status of subjects with stroke. (J Korean Acad Rehab Med 2007; 31: 283-297)

Keywords

References

  1. Ottenbacher KJ, Hinderer SR. Evidence-based practice. Methods to evaluate individual patient improvement. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 80: 786-796 https://doi.org/10.1097/00002060-200110000-00014
  2. Westergren A, Karlsson S, Andersson P, Ohlsson O, Hallberg IR. Eating difficulties, need for assisted eating, nutritional status and pressure ulcers in patients admitted for stroke rehabilitation. J Clin Nurs 2001; 10: 257-269 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2702.2001.00479.x
  3. Fiedler RC, Granger CV, Post LA. The Uniform Data System for medical rehabilitation: report of first administration for 1998. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 79: 87-92 https://doi.org/10.1097/00002060-200001000-00017
  4. Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Improving the sensitivity of the barthel index for stroke rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 703-709 https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(89)90065-6
  5. Shah S, Muncer S. Sensitivity of Shah, Vanclay and Cooper's Modified Barthel Index. Clin Rehabil 2000; 14: 551-552 https://doi.org/10.1191/0269215500cr360oa
  6. Gresham GE, Phillips TF, Labi ML. ADL status in stroke: relative merits of three standard indexes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1980; 61: 355-358
  7. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 1417-1432 https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N
  8. Lee KM, Jang YH, Kim YH, Moon SK, Park JH, Park SW, Yu HJ, Lee SG, Chun MH, Han TR. Reliability and validity of Korea version of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale - Multi-center study. J Korean Acad Rehab Med 2004; 28; 422-435
  9. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the barthel index. Md State Med J 1965; 14: 61-65
  10. Roden-Jullig A, Britton M, Gustafsson C, Fugl-Meyer A. Validation of four scales for the acute stage of stroke. J Intern Med 1994; 236: 125-36 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2796.1994.tb01274.x
  11. Kucukdeveci AA, Yavuzer G, Tennant A, Suldur N, Sonel B, Arasil T. Adaptation of the Modified Barthel Index for use in physical medicine and rehabilitation in Turkey. Scand J Rehabil Med 2000; 32: 87-92 https://doi.org/10.1080/003655000750045604
  12. Kidd D, Stewart G, Baldry J, Johnson J, Rossiter D, Petruckevitch A, Thompson AJ. The Functional Independence Measure: a comparative validity and reliability study. Disabil Rehabil 1995; 17: 10-14 https://doi.org/10.3109/09638289509166622
  13. Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fiedler RC. The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 1226-1232 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90184-7
  14. Jung HY, Kim MO, Paik KW, Kim TH. Reliability test of Functional Independence Measure (FIM) in Activities of Daily Living (ADL) evaluation. J Korean Acad Rehab Med 1999; 23: 492-496
  15. Davidoff GN, Roth EJ, Haughton JS, Ardner MS. Cognitive dysfunction in spinal cord injury patients: sensitivity of the Functional Independence Measure subscales vs neuropsychologic assessment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1990; 71: 326-329
  16. Stineman MG, Shea JA, Jette A, Tassoni CJ, Ottenbacher KJ, Fiedler R, Granger CV. The Functional Independence Measure: tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 1101-1108 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90130-6
  17. Ko UH. Biostatistics, 1st ed, Seoul: Topmedipia. 2005, pp 291-315
  18. Loewen SC, Anderson BA. Predictors of stroke outcome using objective measurement scales. Stroke 1990; 21: 78-81 https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.21.1.78
  19. Wade DT, Hewer RL. Functional abilities after stroke: measurement, natural history and prognosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1987; 50: 177-182 https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.50.2.177
  20. Stineman MG, Granger CV. Outcome, efficiency, and time-trend pattern analysis for stroke rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1998; 77