Measuring disability in multiple sclerosis: is the Community Dependency Index an improvement on the Barthel Index?

Abstract

The Community Dependency Index (CDI) was developed due to concerns that the Barthel Index (BI) was limited as a measure of physical function in community settings. However, no studies have compared the two rating scales within multiple sclerosis (MS). The aim of this study was to determine whether, in a community-based sample of people with MS, the CDI is a better measure than the BI. BI and CDI data were collected from 90 people with MS. Four measurement properties were compared: scaling assumptions (item mean scores, corrected item-total correlations), acceptability (score distributions, floor/ceiling effects), reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) and validity (concurrent, discriminant, group differences, relative validity). Both scales satisfied recommended criteria for scaling assumptions (indicating it was legitimate to report a summed score) and internal consistency reliability (alpha-0.85). The scales were highly correlated (r- 0.96), indicating they measured the same construct. Both scales demonstrated good group differences validity, but the BI was marginally superior. Notable ceiling effects (BI-CDI) were demonstrated for both scales, particularly in those less disabled. This study sample had relatively minor levels of disability, with over 70% still being independently mobile. In this sample of people with MS, the measurement properties of the BI and CDI examined were very similar, suggesting the CDI does not appear to have achieved its goal of better measurement.

Keywords

disability multiple sclerosis outcome assessment psychometric properties

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Sharrack B , Hughes RAC. Clinical scales for multiple sclerosis . J Neurol Sci 1996; 135: 1-9 .

McDowell I , Newell C. Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York, NY: Oxford University Press , 1987.

Mahoney FI , Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index . Maryland State Med J 1965; 2: 61-65 .

van der Putten JJMF , Hobart JC , Freeman JA , Thompson AJ. Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure . J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999; 66: 480-484 .

Hobart JC , Lamping DL , Freeman JA , Langdon DW , McLellan DL , Greenwood RJ et al.

Evidence-based measurement. Which disability scale for neurologic rehabilitation?

Neurology 2001; 57: 639-644 .

Eakin P , Baird H. The Community Dependency Index: a standardised assessment of need and measure of outcome for community occupational therapists . Br J Occup Ther 1995; 58: 17-22 .

Department of Health . The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. London: HMSO , 1990.

Freeman JA , Hobart JC , Thompson AJ.

Does adding MS-specific items to a generic measure (the SF-36) improve measurement?

Neurology 2001; 57: 68-74 .

Wade DT , Collin C.

The Barthel Index: a standard measure of physical disability?

Int Disabil Stud 1988; 10: 64-67 .

10.

Ward GW , Macaulay F , Jagger C , Harper W. Standardised assessment: a comparison of the Community Dependency Index and the Barthel Index with an elderly hip fracture population . Br J Occup Ther 1998; 61: 121-126 .

11.

Hobart JC. Evaluating neurological outcome measures: the bare essentials . J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1996; 60: 127-130 .

12.

Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests . Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297-334 .

13.

McHorney CA , Ware JE , Raczek AE. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs . Med Care 1993; 31: 247-263 .

14.

McHorney CA , Tarlov AR. Individual patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate . Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 293-307 .

15.

Nunnally JC , Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory, third edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill , 1994.

16.

Kucukdeveci AA , Yavuzer G , Tennant A , Suldur N , Sonel B , Arasil T. Adaptation of the modified Barthel Index for use in physical medicine and rehabilitation in Turkey . Scand J Rehab Med 2000; 32: 87-92 .

17.

Fischer JS , Rudick RA , Cutter GR , Reingold SC. The Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite measure (MSFC): an integrated approach to MS clinical outcome assessment . Mult Scler 1999; 5: 244-250 .

18.

Rudick RA , Cutter G , Reingold S. The Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite: a new clinical outcome measure for multiple sclerosis trials . Mult Scler 2002; 8: 359-365 .