@article{MukainoProdingerOkouchietal.2020, author = {Mukaino, M. and Prodinger, Birgit and Okouchi, Y. and Mizutani, K. and Senju, Y. and Suzuki, M. and Saitoh, E.}, title = {Development and assessment of a home environment checklist to evaluate mismatch between patients' ability and home environment}, series = {Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine}, volume = {63}, journal = {Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine}, number = {4}, pages = {288 -- 295}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Background Modification of the home environment, together with rehabilitative interventions, is important for maximizing the level of functioning after an individual with disability undergoes rehabilitation in the hospital. Objectives We developed a simple screening scale - the home environment checklist (HEC) - to identify any mismatch between an individual's abilities and their home environment to help clinicians monitor the appropriateness of the home environment to which individuals with disability will be discharged. We also examined the psychometric properties of the HEC. Methods The HEC was developed by a multidisciplinary panel of rehabilitation experts using information routinely collected in rehabilitation clinics before discharge. The reliability of the checklist was assessed in 60 individuals undergoing rehabilitation. The inter-rater agreement and internal consistency of the scale were assessed by weighted kappa statistics and Cronbach's alpha, respectively. Rasch analysis was performed with 244 rehabilitation individuals to evaluate the internal construct validity, and the known-groups validity was confirmed by a comparison of the daily activity levels of 30 individuals with disabilities under rehabilitation to the HEC score. Results The HEC was developed as a simple, 10-item checklist. The weighted kappa statistics ranged from 0.73 to 0.93, indicating excellent inter-rater reliability. Cronbach's alpha was 0.92, indicating high internal consistency. Rasch analysis with a testlet approach on 3 subscales demonstrated a good fit with the Rasch model (χ2 = 13.2, P = 0.153), and the demonstrated unidimensionality and absence of differential item functioning supported the internal construct validity of the HEC. HEC scores were significantly different (P < .01) among individuals with disability and 3 levels of restrictions in their activities (no limitation, home-bound, and bed-bound), which demonstrates the known-groups validity of the HEC. Conclusions The HEC has good reliability and validity, which supports its utility in rehabilitation clinics.}, language = {en} } @article{SenjuMukainoProdingeretal.2021, author = {Senju, Y and Mukaino, M and Prodinger, Birgit and Selb, M and Okouchi, Y and Mizutani, K and Suzuki, M and Yamada, S and Izumi, SI and Sonoda, S and Otaka, Y and Saitoh, E and Stucki, G}, title = {Development of a clinical tool for rating the body function categories of the ICF generic-30/rehabilitation set in Japanese rehabilitation practice and examination of its interrater reliability}, series = {BMC Medical Research Methodology}, volume = {21}, journal = {BMC Medical Research Methodology}, number = {1}, pages = {121}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Background: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) Generic-30 (Rehabilitation) Set is a tool used to assess the functioning of a clinical population in rehabilitation. The ICF Generic-30 consists of nine ICF categories from the component "body functions" and 21 from the component "activities and participation". This study aimed to develop a rating reference guide for the nine body function categories of the ICF Generic-30 Set using a predefined, structured process and to examine the interrater reliability of the ratings using the rating reference guide. Methods: The development of the first version of the rating reference guide involved the following steps: (1) a trial of rating patients by several raters; (2) cognitive interviews with each rater to analyze the thought process involved in each rating; (3) the drafting of the rating reference guide by a multidisciplinary panel; and (4) a review by ICF specialists to confirm consistency with the ICF. Subsequently, we conducted a first field test to gain insight into the use of the guide in practice. The reference guide was modified based on the raters' feedback in the field test, and an inter-rater reliability test was conducted thereafter. Interrater agreement was evaluated using weighted kappa statistics with linear weights. Results: The first version of the rating reference guide was successfully developed and tested. The weighted kappa coefficient in the field testing ranged from 0.25 to 0.92. The interrater reliability testing of the rating reference guide modified based on the field test results yielded an improved weighted kappa coefficient ranging from 0.53 to 0.78. Relative improvements in the weighted kappa coefficients were observed in seven out of the nine categories. Consequently, seven out of nine categories were found to have a weighted kappa coefficient of 0.61 or higher. Conclusions: In this study, we developed and modified a rating reference guide for the body function categories of the ICF Generic-30 Set. The interrater reliability test using the final version of the rating reference guide showed moderate to substantial interrater agreement, which encouraged the use of the ICF in rehabilitation practice.}, language = {en} }