Home | Site map | Contacts | Russian version E-journal "Psychological-Educational Studies" | Open Access Journal
Home page
electronic journal
Psychological-Educational Studies
Directory of open access journals ERIH PLUS VAK Scientific electronic library elibrary.ru

Journal rubrics

All rubrics
Psychological Science and Education psyedu.ru
2012. No. 4.
ISSN: 2074-5885 (online)

Evaluation in Rehabilitation: Outcomes, Assessments, and Measurement of Change

Bengel J. Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Germany
Kraft M. Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Germany
Mittag O. University Medical Center of Freiburg, Germany
PrintPrint

The evaluation of rehabilitation interventions is of essential significance in rehabilitation and rehabilitation research. In this context, the present article deals with the most important aspects concerning the measurement of success and change. Pivotal outcome criteria and indicators as well as the most often applied self-report instruments are introduced. The IRES-3 (Indicators of Rehabilitation Status), developed in Germany, is described in more detail. Following questions regarding the measurement of change, alternative assessment methods, namely goal-oriented measure and adaptive testing based on Item-Response-Theory, are discussed.

Keywords: Diagnostic measures, assessment methods, outcome evaluation, quality of life, item response theory, rehabilitation

Rubric: Psychosocial Rehabilitation and Correction

For Reference

References

  1. Abberger, B., Haschke, S., Krense, C., Wirtz, M., Bengel, J., & Baumeister, H. (in press). Development and calibration of an item bank for the assessment of anxiety in cardiovascular patients using Rasch analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.
  2. Bernhard, J., Lowy, A., Mathys, N., Herrmann, R., & Hürny, C. (2004). Health related quality of life: A changing construct? Quality of Life Research, 13, 1187-1197.
  3. Biefang, S., Birkner, B., Thien, U., Härtel, U., & Bullinger, M. (1997). Harmonisierung der Messung von Outcomes, Prädiktoren und Kosten sowie Prüfung geschlechtsspezifischer Unterschiede in der rehabilitationswissenschaftlichen Forschung. Rehabilitation, 36, 1-11.
  4. Beutler, L.E. & Hamblin, D.L. (1986). Individual outcome measures of internal change: Methodological considerations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 48-53.
  5. Bruyere, S., Van Looy, S., & Peterson, D. B. (2005). The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: Contemporary literature overview. Rehabilitation Psychology, 50, 113–121.
  6. Bührlen, B., Gerdes, N., & Jäckel, W. H. (2005). Entwicklung und psychometrische Testung eines Patientenfragebogens für die medizinische Rehabilitation (IRES-3). Rehabilitation, 44, 63-74.
  7. Bullinger, M. (2000). Erfassung der gesundheitsbezogenen Lebensqualität mit dem SF-36-Health Survey. Bundesgesundheitsblatt – Gesundheitsforschung – Gesundheitsschutz, 43, 190-197.
  8. Bullinger, M. & Ravens-Sieberer, U. (2000). Indikatoren des Rehabilitationsergebnisses. In J. Bengel & U. Koch (Hrsg.), Grundlagen der Rehabilitationswissenschaften (S. 305-322). Heidelberg: Springer.
  9. Coster, W.J., Haley, S.M., Andres, P.L., Ludlow, L.H., Bond, T.L.Y., & Ni, P. (2004). Refining the conceptual basis for rehabilitation outcome measurement. Personal care and instrumental activities domain. Medical Care, 42, 62-72.
  10. Deck, R., Mittag, O., Hüppe, A., Muche-Borowski, C., & Raspe, H. (2007). Index zur Messung von Einschränkungen der Teilhabe (IMET) – Erste Ergebnisse eines ICF-orientierten Assessmentinstruments. Praxis Klinische Verhaltensmedizin und Rehabilitation, 76, 113-120.
  11. DIMDI (2004). ICF Internationale Klassifikation der Funktionsfähigkeit, Behinderung und Gesundheit. Köln: DIMDI.
  12. Freund, A. M. & Ziegelmann, J. P. (2009). Lebensqualität: Die Bedeutung der Selektion, Optimierung und Kompensation. In J. Bengel & M. Jerusalem (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Gesundheitspsychologie und der Medizinischen Psychologie (S.475-48). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
  13. Frey, C., Zwingmann, C., Böcker, M., Forkmann, T., Kröhne, U., Müller, E., & Wirtz. M. (2011). Adaptives Testen in der Rehabilitation - ein Weg zur ökonomischen Erhebung von Patientenmerkmalen. Rehabilitation, 50(3), 195–203.
  14. Gerdes, N. (1998). Rehabilitationseffekte bei ‚Zielorientierter Ergebnismessung’. Ergebnisse der IRES-ZOE-Studie 1996/97. Deutsche Rentenversicherung, 3-4, 217-237.
  15. Gerdes, N. (2005). Ein ICF-basiertes Theoriemodell der Rehabilitation als theoretischer Bezugsrahmen für den IRES-Fragebogen In L. Leonhart & N. Gerdes (Hrsg.), Der Einsatz des IRES-Fragebogens in der Rehabilitation (S. 93-110). Regensburg: Roderer.
  16. Haley, S.M., Fragala-Pinkham, M.A., Ni, P.S., Skrinar, A.M., & Corzo, D. (2005). An adaptive testing approach for assessing physical functioning in children and adolescents. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 47, 113-120.
  17. Hambleton R. (1993). Principles and selected applications of Item Response Theory. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (pp. 147-200). Phoenix: Oryx.
  18. Haschke, A., Abberger, B., Müller, E., Wirtz, M., Bengel, J., & Baumeister, H. (in press). Calibration of an item bank for work capacity in cardiological rehabilitation patients. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.
  19. Heinemann, A.W. (2005). Putting outcome measurement in context: A Rehabilitation Psychology perspective. Rehabilitation Psychology, 50, 6-14.
  20. Hunt, S. M., McKenna, S. P., McEwen, J., Williams, J., & Papp, E. (1981). The Nottingham Health Profile: Subjective health status and medical consultations. Social Science & Medicine, 15A, 221-229.
  21. Jäckel, W.H., Bengel, J., & Herdt, J. (Eds.) (2006). Research in rehabilitation. Results of a German Rehabilitation Research Network (Freiburg/Bad Säckingen). Stuttgart: Thieme.
  22. Keith, R. A., Granger, C. V., Hamilton, B. B., & Sherwin, F. S. (1987). The Functional Independence Measure: A New Tool for Rehabilitation. In M. G. Eisenberg, R. C. Grzesiak (Eds.), Advances in Clinical Rehabilitation (pp. 6-18). Springer: New York.
  23. Kiresuk, T.J., Smith, A., & Cardillo, J.E. (1994). Goal attainment scaling: applications, theory and measurement. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
  24. Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R.L., Williams, J.B.W., & Lowe, B. (2009). An Ultra-Brief Screening Scale for Anxiety and Depression: The PHQ-4. Psychosomatics, 50, 613-621.
  25. McHorney, C. A. (1999). Health status assessment methods for adults: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Annual Review of Public Health, 20, 309-35.
  26. Meyer-Moock S., Moock J., Mittag O., & Kohlmann T. (2012). The factor structure of direct and indirect methods for measuring change in medical rehabilitation--analyses on item level [in German]. Die Rehabilitation, 51, 118-128.
  27. Mittag, O., Kohlmann, T., Meyer, T., Meyer-Moock, S., Meffert, C., Farin-Glattacker, E., Gerdes, N., Pohontsch, N., Moock, J., Jelitte, M., Löschmann, C., Bitzer, E.M., & Raspe, H. (2012). Empirically Derived Recommendations for Measuring Patient-Reported Change in Rehabilitation Studies [in German]. Die Rehabilitation (online-first; DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1314876).
  28. Peterson, D. B. (2005). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: An introduction for Rehabilitation Psychologists. Rehabilitation Psychology, 50, 105–112.
  29. Reed, G.M., Lux, J.B., & Bufka, L.F. (2005). Operationalizing the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in Clinical Settings. Rehabilitation Psychology, 50, 122-131.
  30. Schulte-Bahrenberg, T. (1990). Therapieziele, Therapieprozess und Therapieerfolg. Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus.
  31. Schulz, H. (2002). FIM Manual. Messung der Funktionalen Selbständigkeit (Functional Independence Measure). Meerbusch: Schmidt.
  32. Szcabo, S., on behalf of the WHOQOL Group (1996). The World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) Assessment Instrument. In: B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (pp. 355-362). 2nd ed. New York: Lippincott-Raven Publishers.
  33. Van der Linden, W.J., & Glas, C.A.W. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice. Boston: Kluwer.
  34. Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12-item short-form health survey. Medical Care, 34(3), 220-233.
  35. Ware, J. E., Gandek, B., Sinclair, S. J. & Bjorner, J. B. (2005). Item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: Implications for outcomes measurement in rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 50, 71-78.

 

Subscribe

RSS — what is it?
Publisher — Moscow State University of Psychology and Education
© 2006–2019 Electronic journal "Psychological-Educational Studies", ISSN: 2587-6139 (2074-5885)
Publisher – Moscow State University of Psychology and Education
Яндекс.Метрика