Comparing the Responsiveness of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills and the Functional Independence Measure
Background. Selecting and utilizing appropriate assessments to evaluate outcomes is an important aspect of evidence-based occupational therapy practice. The Functional Independence Measure (FIM), to which occupational therapists contribute motor and cognitive scores, is currently the only required a...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Canadian journal of occupational therapy (1939) 2012-06, Vol.79 (3), p.167-174 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 174 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 167 |
| container_title | Canadian journal of occupational therapy (1939) |
| container_volume | 79 |
| creator | Fioravanti, Andrea M. Bordignon, Candace M. Pettit, Susan M. Woodhouse, Linda J. Ansley, Barbara J. |
| description | Background. Selecting and utilizing appropriate assessments to evaluate outcomes is an important aspect of evidence-based occupational therapy practice. The Functional Independence Measure (FIM), to which occupational therapists contribute motor and cognitive scores, is currently the only required assessment for evaluating change from admission to discharge on an inpatient rehabilitation unit. However, occupational therapists are also using the motor and process scales from the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) to assess clients and evaluate change.
Purpose. To compare responsiveness of the AMPS and the FIM on an inpatient rehabilitation unit.
Methods. A retrospective chart review of AMPS measures and FIM scores at admission and discharge was undertaken. Standardized response means and effect sizes were calculated to estimate responsiveness.
Findings. No significant difference was found in the ability of the AMPS motor and FIM motor scales to detect change. The AMPS process scale was more responsive to change than the FIM cognitive scale.
Implications. Using the AMPS as an assessment to evaluate outcomes allows practitioners to detect changes that may not be detected through the exclusive use of the FIM. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.2182/cjot.2012.79.3.6 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1027834038</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.2182_cjot.2012.79.3.6</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2262083106</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-a758ec3636125fcd2f39fd48c178f392a503713facb218971babdfa4f9ab3f123</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUtv1TAQhS0EoreFPSsUiQ2bBD-S2F5WVy2t1ArEY205zrjkktjBkyDx73F6C0JIsLE9R5_PaOYQ8oLRijPF37hDXCpOGa-krkTVPiI7phkrteLqMdlRSlVZM1mfkFPEQy6bRrRPyQnnivNW1zuS9nGabRrCXbF8geID4BwDDt8hAGIR_b16jpirCcKyKbdxiamwoS_ep-g27OPXYRzxXtrwyzW4ZYjBjsV16GGGfAQHxS1YXBM8I0-8HRGeP9xn5PPlxaf9VXnz7u31_vymdEKLpbSyUeBEK1rGG-967oX2fa0ckyo_uW2okEx467q8Cy1ZZ7ve29pr2wnPuDgjr4--c4rfVsDFTAM6GEcbIK5oGOVSiZoKldFXf6GHuKY8AJq8J06VYLT9H8WooLyRtZCZokfKpYiYwJs5DZNNPzJkttTMlprZUjNSG2E245cPxms3Qf_7w6-YMlAeAbR38GfXfxj-BFbEogY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1030257437</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing the Responsiveness of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills and the Functional Independence Measure</title><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Fioravanti, Andrea M. ; Bordignon, Candace M. ; Pettit, Susan M. ; Woodhouse, Linda J. ; Ansley, Barbara J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Fioravanti, Andrea M. ; Bordignon, Candace M. ; Pettit, Susan M. ; Woodhouse, Linda J. ; Ansley, Barbara J.</creatorcontrib><description>Background. Selecting and utilizing appropriate assessments to evaluate outcomes is an important aspect of evidence-based occupational therapy practice. The Functional Independence Measure (FIM), to which occupational therapists contribute motor and cognitive scores, is currently the only required assessment for evaluating change from admission to discharge on an inpatient rehabilitation unit. However, occupational therapists are also using the motor and process scales from the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) to assess clients and evaluate change.
Purpose. To compare responsiveness of the AMPS and the FIM on an inpatient rehabilitation unit.
Methods. A retrospective chart review of AMPS measures and FIM scores at admission and discharge was undertaken. Standardized response means and effect sizes were calculated to estimate responsiveness.
Findings. No significant difference was found in the ability of the AMPS motor and FIM motor scales to detect change. The AMPS process scale was more responsive to change than the FIM cognitive scale.
Implications. Using the AMPS as an assessment to evaluate outcomes allows practitioners to detect changes that may not be detected through the exclusive use of the FIM.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0008-4174</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1911-9828</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2182/cjot.2012.79.3.6</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22822694</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CJOTAA</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Aging (Individuals) ; Change detection ; Cognitive ability ; Disability Evaluation ; Discharge ; Effect Size ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Intervention ; Motor skill ; Occupational Therapy ; Older people ; Outcomes of Treatment ; Patients ; Program Evaluation ; Psychometrics ; Rehabilitation ; Rehabilitation Centers ; Rehabilitation Programs ; Resistance (Psychology) ; Retrospective Studies ; Skills ; Studies ; Therapists ; Validity</subject><ispartof>Canadian journal of occupational therapy (1939), 2012-06, Vol.79 (3), p.167-174</ispartof><rights>2012 Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists (CAOT)</rights><rights>Copyright Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists Jun 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-a758ec3636125fcd2f39fd48c178f392a503713facb218971babdfa4f9ab3f123</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-a758ec3636125fcd2f39fd48c178f392a503713facb218971babdfa4f9ab3f123</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2182/cjot.2012.79.3.6$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2182/cjot.2012.79.3.6$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27901,27902,43597,43598</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22822694$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fioravanti, Andrea M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bordignon, Candace M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pettit, Susan M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Woodhouse, Linda J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ansley, Barbara J.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing the Responsiveness of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills and the Functional Independence Measure</title><title>Canadian journal of occupational therapy (1939)</title><addtitle>Can J Occup Ther</addtitle><description>Background. Selecting and utilizing appropriate assessments to evaluate outcomes is an important aspect of evidence-based occupational therapy practice. The Functional Independence Measure (FIM), to which occupational therapists contribute motor and cognitive scores, is currently the only required assessment for evaluating change from admission to discharge on an inpatient rehabilitation unit. However, occupational therapists are also using the motor and process scales from the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) to assess clients and evaluate change.
Purpose. To compare responsiveness of the AMPS and the FIM on an inpatient rehabilitation unit.
Methods. A retrospective chart review of AMPS measures and FIM scores at admission and discharge was undertaken. Standardized response means and effect sizes were calculated to estimate responsiveness.
Findings. No significant difference was found in the ability of the AMPS motor and FIM motor scales to detect change. The AMPS process scale was more responsive to change than the FIM cognitive scale.
Implications. Using the AMPS as an assessment to evaluate outcomes allows practitioners to detect changes that may not be detected through the exclusive use of the FIM.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Aging (Individuals)</subject><subject>Change detection</subject><subject>Cognitive ability</subject><subject>Disability Evaluation</subject><subject>Discharge</subject><subject>Effect Size</subject><subject>Hospitalization</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Motor skill</subject><subject>Occupational Therapy</subject><subject>Older people</subject><subject>Outcomes of Treatment</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Program Evaluation</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>Rehabilitation</subject><subject>Rehabilitation Centers</subject><subject>Rehabilitation Programs</subject><subject>Resistance (Psychology)</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Skills</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Therapists</subject><subject>Validity</subject><issn>0008-4174</issn><issn>1911-9828</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUtv1TAQhS0EoreFPSsUiQ2bBD-S2F5WVy2t1ArEY205zrjkktjBkyDx73F6C0JIsLE9R5_PaOYQ8oLRijPF37hDXCpOGa-krkTVPiI7phkrteLqMdlRSlVZM1mfkFPEQy6bRrRPyQnnivNW1zuS9nGabRrCXbF8geID4BwDDt8hAGIR_b16jpirCcKyKbdxiamwoS_ep-g27OPXYRzxXtrwyzW4ZYjBjsV16GGGfAQHxS1YXBM8I0-8HRGeP9xn5PPlxaf9VXnz7u31_vymdEKLpbSyUeBEK1rGG-967oX2fa0ckyo_uW2okEx467q8Cy1ZZ7ve29pr2wnPuDgjr4--c4rfVsDFTAM6GEcbIK5oGOVSiZoKldFXf6GHuKY8AJq8J06VYLT9H8WooLyRtZCZokfKpYiYwJs5DZNNPzJkttTMlprZUjNSG2E245cPxms3Qf_7w6-YMlAeAbR38GfXfxj-BFbEogY</recordid><startdate>201206</startdate><enddate>201206</enddate><creator>Fioravanti, Andrea M.</creator><creator>Bordignon, Candace M.</creator><creator>Pettit, Susan M.</creator><creator>Woodhouse, Linda J.</creator><creator>Ansley, Barbara J.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FQ</scope><scope>8FV</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M3G</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201206</creationdate><title>Comparing the Responsiveness of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills and the Functional Independence Measure</title><author>Fioravanti, Andrea M. ; Bordignon, Candace M. ; Pettit, Susan M. ; Woodhouse, Linda J. ; Ansley, Barbara J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-a758ec3636125fcd2f39fd48c178f392a503713facb218971babdfa4f9ab3f123</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Aging (Individuals)</topic><topic>Change detection</topic><topic>Cognitive ability</topic><topic>Disability Evaluation</topic><topic>Discharge</topic><topic>Effect Size</topic><topic>Hospitalization</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Motor skill</topic><topic>Occupational Therapy</topic><topic>Older people</topic><topic>Outcomes of Treatment</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Program Evaluation</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>Rehabilitation</topic><topic>Rehabilitation Centers</topic><topic>Rehabilitation Programs</topic><topic>Resistance (Psychology)</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Skills</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Therapists</topic><topic>Validity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fioravanti, Andrea M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bordignon, Candace M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pettit, Susan M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Woodhouse, Linda J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ansley, Barbara J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database</collection><collection>Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>CBCA Reference & Current Events</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Canadian journal of occupational therapy (1939)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fioravanti, Andrea M.</au><au>Bordignon, Candace M.</au><au>Pettit, Susan M.</au><au>Woodhouse, Linda J.</au><au>Ansley, Barbara J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing the Responsiveness of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills and the Functional Independence Measure</atitle><jtitle>Canadian journal of occupational therapy (1939)</jtitle><addtitle>Can J Occup Ther</addtitle><date>2012-06</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>79</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>167</spage><epage>174</epage><pages>167-174</pages><issn>0008-4174</issn><eissn>1911-9828</eissn><coden>CJOTAA</coden><abstract>Background. Selecting and utilizing appropriate assessments to evaluate outcomes is an important aspect of evidence-based occupational therapy practice. The Functional Independence Measure (FIM), to which occupational therapists contribute motor and cognitive scores, is currently the only required assessment for evaluating change from admission to discharge on an inpatient rehabilitation unit. However, occupational therapists are also using the motor and process scales from the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) to assess clients and evaluate change.
Purpose. To compare responsiveness of the AMPS and the FIM on an inpatient rehabilitation unit.
Methods. A retrospective chart review of AMPS measures and FIM scores at admission and discharge was undertaken. Standardized response means and effect sizes were calculated to estimate responsiveness.
Findings. No significant difference was found in the ability of the AMPS motor and FIM motor scales to detect change. The AMPS process scale was more responsive to change than the FIM cognitive scale.
Implications. Using the AMPS as an assessment to evaluate outcomes allows practitioners to detect changes that may not be detected through the exclusive use of the FIM.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>22822694</pmid><doi>10.2182/cjot.2012.79.3.6</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0008-4174 |
| ispartof | Canadian journal of occupational therapy (1939), 2012-06, Vol.79 (3), p.167-174 |
| issn | 0008-4174 1911-9828 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1027834038 |
| source | SAGE Complete A-Z List; MEDLINE |
| subjects | Aged Aged, 80 and over Aging (Individuals) Change detection Cognitive ability Disability Evaluation Discharge Effect Size Hospitalization Humans Intervention Motor skill Occupational Therapy Older people Outcomes of Treatment Patients Program Evaluation Psychometrics Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Centers Rehabilitation Programs Resistance (Psychology) Retrospective Studies Skills Studies Therapists Validity |
| title | Comparing the Responsiveness of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills and the Functional Independence Measure |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T20%3A33%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20the%20Responsiveness%20of%20the%20Assessment%20of%20Motor%20and%20Process%20Skills%20and%20the%20Functional%20Independence%20Measure&rft.jtitle=Canadian%20journal%20of%20occupational%20therapy%20(1939)&rft.au=Fioravanti,%20Andrea%20M.&rft.date=2012-06&rft.volume=79&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=167&rft.epage=174&rft.pages=167-174&rft.issn=0008-4174&rft.eissn=1911-9828&rft.coden=CJOTAA&rft_id=info:doi/10.2182/cjot.2012.79.3.6&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2262083106%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1030257437&rft_id=info:pmid/22822694&rft_sage_id=10.2182_cjot.2012.79.3.6&rfr_iscdi=true |