Objective: The Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation is a multi-domain measurement with good content validity, structural validity and reliability for measuring physical functioning ... Show moreObjective: The Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation is a multi-domain measurement with good content validity, structural validity and reliability for measuring physical functioning (mobility, selfcare) and cognitive functioning in geriatric rehabilitation. We aimed to determine the construct validity of both Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation scales and the responsiveness and interpretability of the scale for physical functioning in geriatric rehabilitation.Design: Prospective follow-up study embedded in routine care.Setting: Four care organisations in The Netherlands.Subjects: Patients admitted for inpatient geriatric rehabilitation (2021-2022).Main measures: Data collection included the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation, Mini-Mental State Examination, Barthel index, and a global rating scale anchor on recovery. Hypothesis testing was used to determine construct validity and responsiveness. For interpretability, minimal important change and floor and ceiling effects were determined.Results: The mean age of participants (n=211) was 77 (SD 10.4). Their mean length of stay was 38.6 days (SD 26.3), and 81% returned home. The Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation showed adequate construct validity, as all three hypotheses were confirmed for both scales. The Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-physical function scale showed adequate responsiveness, with all five hypotheses confirmed. The mean change for physical function (scale range 0-70) was 15.5 points (SD 17.1). The minimal important change for Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-physical function was 14.5 points difference for improvement. This scale showed no floor (2%) and ceiling effects (14%) at admission and discharge.Conclusions: The Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation showed to be effective for evaluating physical functioning during geriatric rehabilitation as well as screening cognitive functioning. In total, 14.5 points difference has been established as a minimal important change for physical functioning. Show less
Introduction: : Establish content and structural validity, internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and measurement error of the physical and cognitive scales of the Utrecht Scale for... Show moreIntroduction: : Establish content and structural validity, internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and measurement error of the physical and cognitive scales of the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation clinical Rehabilitation (USER) in geriatric rehabilitation. Material and methods: : First, an expert consensus-meeting (N=7) was organised for content validity wherein scale content validity index (CVI) was measured. Second, in a sample of geriatric rehabilitation patient structural validity (N=616) was assessed by confirmatory factor analyses for exploring unidimensionality. Cut-off criteria were: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) <= 0.08; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) >0.95. Local independence (residual correlation<0.20) and monotonicity (Hi-coefficient >0.30 and Hs-coefficient >0.50) were also calculated. Cronbach alphas were calculated for internal consistency. Alpha's > 0.7 was considered adequate. T hird, two nurses independently administered the USER to 37 patients. Intraclass-correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated for inter-rater reliability (IRR), standard error of measurement (SEM) and Smallest Detectable Change (SDC). Results: : The CVI for physical functioning was moderate (0.73) and excellent for cognitive functioning (0.97). Structural validity physical scale was acceptable (CFI;0.95, TLI;0.93, RMSEA;0.07, ECV;0.78, OmegaH;0.87; Monotonicity;(Hi;0.52-0.75 and Hs;0.63)). Cognitive scale was good (CFI;0.98, TLI;0.96, RMSEA;0.05, ECV;0.66 and OmegaH;0.90. Monotonicity;(Hi;0.30 -0.70 and Hs;0.61)). Cronbach's alpha were high: physical scale;0.92 and cognitive scale;0.94. Reliability physical scale ICC;0.94, SEM;5 and SDC;14 and cognitive scale ICC;0.88, SEM;5 and SDC;13. Conclusion: : The observational scales of the USER have shown sufficient content and structural validity, internal consistency, and interrater reliability for measuring physical and cognitive function in geriatric rehabilitation. Trial registration: : N/A Show less
