Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T09:42:46.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validité de la Mesure de l'Indépendance Fonctionnelle (MIF) pour les personnes âgées suivies en réadapation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2010

Louise Demers  and
Francine Giroux
Louise Demers
Affiliation:
Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Montréal
Francine Giroux
Affiliation:
Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Montréal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) was developed to assess the burden of care of persons receiving rehabilitation services in regard to self-care activities and social and cognitive skills. Until now, no study has evaluated the validity of the FIM with the elderly without distinction of diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to examine the MIF's factorial structure using a principal components analysis. As a secondary goal, the predictive validity and the internal consistency of the instrument were also examined. Data collected from 120 subjects generated a solution consisting of three factors accounting for 67.6 per cent of the total variance. The first factor (46.6%) represents the handicap concept, the second factor (14.7%) measures disability and the third factor (6.3%) represents disability with a major component of physical involvement of lower extremities. The results of this analysis confirm the multidimensional structure of the FIM and reveal the possibility of a third factor for the elderly. With this population, internal consistency of the instrument, obtained from admission and discharge data, is estimated at 0.92 and 0.96 with Cronbach's alpha. Total FIM score at discharge as well as items related to the handicap factor as measured on admission allow us to correctly predict place of discharge in a proportion of 72.9 per cent of the cases. These results indicate that the FIM bears an interesting potential for measuring rehabilitation outcomes for the elderly.

Résumé

La Mesure de l'Indépendance Fonctionnelle (MIF) a été conçue dans le but de rendre compte de la lourdeur de soins en regard des activités de soins personnels et des capacités cognitives et sociales des personnes suivies en réadaptation. Jusqu'à présent, aucune étude ne s'est attardée à évaluer sa validité auprès de personnes âgées sans distinction de diagnostics. L'objectif principal de cette étude consiste à décrire la structure factorielle de la MIF au moyen d'une analyse par composantes principales. Comme objectifs secondaires, la validité prédictive et la consistance interne de l'instrument sont explorées. Les données recueillies auprès de 120 sujets génèrent une solution comprenant trois facteurs expliquant 67,6 pour cent de la variance totale. Le premier facteur (46,6%) représente le concept de handicap, le deuxième facteur (14,7%) mesure l'incapacité et le troisième facteur (6,3%) représente l'incapacité avec une composante physique majeure des membres inférieurs. Les résultats de cette analyse confirment la structure multidimensionnelle de la MIF et révèlent la possibilité d'un troisième facteur pour les personnes âgées. Avec cette population, la consistance interne de l'instrument, avec les données à l'admission et au congé, est estimée à 0,92 et à 0,96 avec les coefficients alpha de Cronbach. Le score total de la MIF au congé de même que les items reliés au facteur handicap tels que mesurés à l'admission permettent de prédire correctement la destination au congé dans une proportion de 72,9 pour cent des cas. Ces résultats indiquent que la MIF est dotée d'un potentiel intéressant pour mesurer les effets de la réadaptation des personnes âgées.

Keywords

ValidityPrincipal Components AnalysisFunctional Independence MeasureElderlyRehabilitationOutcome MeasureValiditéanalyse par composantes principalesmesure d'indépendance fonctionnellepersonnes âgéesréadaptationmesure des résultats
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , Hiver/Winter 1997 , pp. 626 - 646
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Références

Boulanger, Y.L., & Audet, M. (1990). Guide d'utilisation pour la collecte des données de la M.I.F. (Mesure de l'Indépendance Fonctionnelle) à l'aide du “Uniform data set for medical rehabilitation”. Montréal: Institut de réadaptation de Montréal.Google Scholar
Braekhus, A., Laake, K., & Engedal, K. (1992). The mini-mental state examination: Identifying the most efficient variables for detecting cognitive impairment in the elderly. Journal of American Geriatrics Society, 40, 1139–1145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brosseau, L., Philippe, P., Dutil, E., & Boulanger, Y.L. (1996). Mesure d'Indépendance Fonctionnelle (M.I.F.) — Recension des écrits. Journal de Réadaptation Médicale, 16, 9–21.Google Scholar
Brosseau, L., Potvin, L., Philippe, P., Boulanger, Y.L., & Dutil, E. (soumis). Construct validation study of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) applied to stroke subjects. Manuscrit soumis pour publication.Google Scholar
Brosseau, L., & Wolfson, C. (1994). The inter-rater reliability and construct validity of the Functional Independence Measure for multiple sclerosis subjects. Clinical Rehabilitation, 8, 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charpentier, P., Legall, M., & Bernot, R. (1994). Étude comparative entre la grille d'évaluation de la Mesure d'Indépendance Fonctionnelle (MIF) et la grille d'évaluation de Coubert (RSS) basée sur la classification internationale des handicaps (CIH). Annales de Réadaptation et de Médecine Physique, 37, 61–67.Google Scholar
Chau, N., Daler, S., Andre, J.M., & Patris, A. (1994). Inter-rater agreement of two functional independence scales: The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and a subjective uniform continuous scale. Disability and Rehabilitation, 16, 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomard, D. (1994). Mesure d'indépendance fonctionnelle. Étude de 400 patients en pathologie neurologique, orthopédique et vasculaire. Annales de Réadaptation et de Médecine Physique, 37, 237–243.Google Scholar
Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to Classical and Modem Test Theory. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Davidoff, G.N., Roth, E.J., Haughton, J.D., & Ardner, M.S. (1990). Cognitive dysfunction in spinal cord injury patients: Sensitivity of the Functional Independence Measure subscales vs neuropsychologie assessment. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 71, 326–329.Google Scholar
Dodds, T.A., Martin, D.P., Stolov, W.C., & Deyo, R.A. (1993). A validation of the Functional Independence Measure and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74, 532–536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, W.P., Harvey, R.F., Taylor, P., Kilgora, K.M., & Kelly, C.K. (1995). Rehabits: A common language of functional assessment. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 76, 113–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Folstein, M.F., Folstein, S.E., & McHugh, P.R. (1975). Mini-mental state: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal Psychiatry Research, 12, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fougeyrollas, P., & Majeau, P. (1991). Le processus de production des handicaps: Comment utiliser le modèle conceptuel — exemples. Réseau International CIDIH, 4(3), 6–59.Google Scholar
Fourn, L., Brosseau, L., Dassa, C., & Dutil, E. (1994). Validation factorielle de la Mesure d'Indépendance Fonctionnelle (MIF) auprès des personnes atteintes de la sclérose en plaques. Journal de Réadaptation Médicale, 14, 7–16.Google Scholar
Fricke, J., Unsworth, C., & Worell, D. (1993). Reliability of the Functional Independence Measure with occupational therapists. The Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 40, 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galin, L.C., Rode, G., Soler-Michel, P., Eyssette, M., & Boisson, D. (1994). Intérêt de l'étude de la Mesure d'Indépendance Fonctionnelle (MIF) dans l'évaluation de la rééducation des sujets hémiplégiques âgés de plus de 60 ans. Annales de Réadaptation et de Médecine Physique, 37, 281–290.Google Scholar
Granger, C.V., Cotter, A.C., Hamilton, B.B., & Fiedler, R.C. (1993). Functional assessment scale: A study of persons after stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74, 133–138.Google Scholar
Granger, C.V., Cotter, A.C., Hamilton, B.B., Fiedler, R.C., & Hens, M.M. (1990). Functional assessment scale: A study of persons with multiple sclerosis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 71, 870–875.Google Scholar
Granger, C.V., Divan, N., & Fiedler, R.C. (1995). Functional assessment scales: A study of persons after traumatic brain injury. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74, 107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, C.V., & Hamilton, B.B. (1994). The Uniform Data System for medical rehabilitation report of first admissions for 1992. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73, 51–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Granger, C.V., Hamilton, B.B., Keith, R.A, Zielezny, M., & Sherwin, F.S. (1986). Advances in functional assessment for medical rehabilitation. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 1(3), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, C.V., Hamilton, B.B., Linacre, J.M, Heinemann, A.W., & Wright, B.D. (1993). Performance profiles of the Functional Independence Measure. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 72, 84–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grey, N., & Kennedy, P. (1993). The Functional Independence Measure: A comparative study of clinican and self ratings. Paraplegia, 31, 457–461.Google Scholar
Guccione, A.A. (1992). Geriatric Physical Therapy. St-Louis, MO: Mosby.Google Scholar
Hamilton, B.B., Granger, C.V., Sherwin, F.S., Zielezny, M., & Tashman, J.S. (1987). A unifom national data system for medical rehabilitation. In Fuhrer, J.M. (Ed.), Rehabilitation outcomes: Analysis and measurement (pp. 137–147). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
Hamilton, B.B., Laughlin, J.A., Fiedler, R.C., & Granger, C.V. (1994). Interrater reliability of the 7-level Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 26, 115–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hébert, R., Bravo, G., & Voyer, L. (1993). Répertoire des instruments de mesure en langue française pour la recherche gérontologique et gériatrique. Sherbrooke, QC: Centre de recherche en gérontologie et gériatrie, Université de Sherbrooke.Google Scholar
Hébert, R., Carrier, R., & Bilodeau, A. (1984). Système de mesure de l'autonomie fonctionnelle (S.M.A.F.). Lévis: C.H. Hôtel-Dieu de Lévis.Google Scholar
Heinemann, A.W., Linacre, J.M., Wright, B.D., Hamilton, B.B., & Granger, C.V. (1993). Relationships between impairment and physical disability as measured by the Functional Independence Measure. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74, 566–573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinemann, A.W., Linacre, J.M., Wright, B.D., Hamilton, B.B., & Granger, C.V. (1994). Prediction of rehabilitation outcomes with disability as measured by the Functional Independence Measure. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 75, 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, I.A., Silberberg, N.E., Stever, R.C., & Schoening, H.A. (1973). The revised Kenny Self-Care Evaluation: A numerical measure of independence in activities of daily living. Minneapolis, MN: Sister Kenny Institute.Google Scholar
Kane, R.A., & Kane, R.L. (1981). Assessing the Elderly: A Practical Guide to Measurement. Toronto, ON: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Kaplan, C.P., & Corrigan, J.D. (1994). The relationship beween cognition and functional independence in adults with traumatic brain injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 75, 643–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, S., Ford, A.B., Moskowitz, R.W., Jackson, B.A., & Jaffe, M.W. (1963). Studies of illness in the aged. The Index of A.D.L.: A standardized measure of biological and psycho-social function. JAMA, 185, 914–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keith, R.A. (1995). Conceptual basis of outcome measures. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabiliation, 74, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinney, C.L., Fucile, J., & Charette, E.E. (1992). Efficacy of inpatient cancer rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73, 977.Google Scholar
Kleinbaum, D.G., Kupper, L.L., & Muller, K.E. (1986). Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent.Google Scholar
Long, W.B., Sacco, W.J., Coombes, S.S., Copes, W.S., BuUock, A., & MelviUe, J.K. (1994). Determining normative standards for Functional Independence Measure transitions in rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 75, 144–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahoney, F.I., & Barthel, D.W. (1965). Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Maryland State Medical Journal, 14, 61–65.Google ScholarPubMed
McDowell, I., & Newell, C. (1987). Measuring Health. A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Minaire, P. (1991). La Mesure d'Indépendance Fonctionnelle (MIF) — Historique, présentation, perspectives. Journal de Réadaptation Médicale, 11, 168–174.Google Scholar
Muecke, L., Shekar, S., Dwyer, D., Israel, E., & Flynn, D.P. (1992). Functional screening of lower-limb amputees: A role in predicting rehabilitation outcomes? Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73, 851–858.Google Scholar
Nosek, M.A., & Fuhrer, M.J. (1992). Independence among people with disabilities: 1. A heuristic model. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 36, 6–20.Google Scholar
Oczkowski, W.J., & Barreca, S. (1993). The Functional Independence Measure: Its use to identify rehabilitation needs in stroke survivors. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74, 1291–1294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Toole, D.M., & Golden, A.M. (1991). Evaluating cancer patients for rehabilitation potential. Western Journal of Medicine, 155, 384–387.Google ScholarPubMed
Ottenbacher, K.J., Mann, W.C., Granger, C.V., Tomita, M., Hurren, D., & Charvat, B. (1994). Inter-rater agreement and stability of functional assessment in the community-based elderly, 1297–1301.Google ScholarPubMed
Sarra-Bournet, C. (1992). La Mesure de l'Indépendance Fonctionnelle. Le Médecin du Québec, 27, 55–64.Google Scholar
Shah, S., & Cooper, B. (1993). Issues in the choice of activities of daily living assessment. The Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 40, 77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Package for Social Science Inc. (SPSS). (1990). SPSS/Unix, Version 4.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
Wilkerson, D., Hildebrandt, L.A., Granger, C.V., & Hamilton, B.B. (1992). Team involvement in rating the Functional Independance Measure (FIM). Archives of Physical Medecine and Rehabilitation, 73, 966.Google Scholar
World Health Organization [WHO]. (1980). International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps. Geneva: World Health Organization. Module.Google Scholar