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.
BeninatoM.Gill-BodyK. M.SallesS.StarkP.Black-SchafferR. M.SteinJ. (2006). Determination of the minimal clinically important difference in the FIM Instrument in patients with stroke. Achives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation, 87, 32–39. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2005.08.130
2.
BernspangB.FisherA. G. (1995). Differences between persons with right or left CVA on the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 76, 1144–1151
Canadian Institute for Health Information. (2007b). Rehabilitation Minimum Data Set manual: Adult inpatient services, February 2008. Ottawa, ON: Author
5.
ChardG. (2000). An investigation into the use of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) in clinical practice. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 481–488
6.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
7.
DickersonA. E.FisherA. G. (1993). Age differences in functional performance. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47, 686–692
8.
DobleS.FiskJ.LewisN.RockwoodK. (1999). Test-retest reliability of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills in elderly adults. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 19, 203–215
9.
DoddsT. A.MartinD. P.StolovW. C.DeyoR. A. (1993). A validation of the Functional Independence Measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Archive Physical Medical Rehabilitation, 74, 531–536
10.
DromerickA. W.EdwardsD. F.DiringerM. N. (2003). Sensitivity to changes in disability after stroke: A comparison of four scales useful in clinical trials. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 40 (1), 1–8
11.
FisherA. G. (2003). Assessment of Motor and Process Skills Volume 1: Development, standardization and administration manual (6th ed.). Fort Collins, CO: Three Star Press
12.
FitzpatrickR.ZieblandS.JenkinsonC.MowatA.MowatA. (1992). Importance of sensitivity to change as a criterion for selecting health status measures. Quality in Health Care, 1, 89–93
13.
GrangerC. V. (1998). The emerging science of functional assessment: Our tool for outcomes analysis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 79, 235–240
14.
GuyattG. H.DeyoR. A.CharlsonM.LevineM. N.MitchellA. (1989). Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: A clarification. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 42 (5), 403–408
15.
KennedyD. M.StratfordP. W.WesselJ.GollishJ. D.PenneyD. (2005). Assessing stability and change of four performance measures: A longitudinal study evaluating outcome following total hip and knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 6(3). doi:10.1186/1471-2474-6-3
16.
KirkleyK. N.FisherA. G. (1999). Alternate forms reliability of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 3, 53–70
17.
LettsL.LawM.PollockN.StewartD.WestmorlandM.PhilpotA.BoschJ. (1999). A program evaluation workbook for occupational therapists: An evidence-based practice tool. Ottawa, ON: CAOT Publications ACE
18.
LindenA.BoschianK.EkerC.SchalenW.NordstromC. (2005). Assessment of Motor and Process Skills reflects brain-injured patients' ability to resume independent living better than neuropsychological tests. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 111, 48–53
19.
MacDermidJ.MicholvitzS. (2008). Incorporating outcomes measures into evidence-based practice. In LawM.MacDermidJ. (Eds.), Evidence-based rehabilitation: A guide to practice (2nd ed., pp. 63–94). Thorofare, NJ: Slack
20.
OakleyF.SunderlandT. (1997). Assessment of Motor and Process Skills as a measure of IADL functioning in pharmacologic studies of people with Alzheimer's Disease: A pilot study. International Psychogeriatrics, 9, 197–206
21.
OttenbacherK. J.HsuY.GrangerC. V.FiedlerR. C. (1996). The reliability of the functional independence measure: A quantitative review. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 77, 1226–1232
RobinsonS. E.FisherA. G. (1996). A study to examine the relationship of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) to other tests of cognition and function. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 59, 260–263
24.
TomitaM. R. (2006). Methods of analysis: From univariate to multivariate statistics. In KielhofnerG. (Ed.), Research in Occupational Therapy (pp. 243–280). Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis Company
25.
Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. (1999). The FIMTM video: Assessing function with the FIMTM instrument. Buffalo, NY: Author
26.
van der PuttenJ.J.M.F.HobartJ. C.FreemanJ. A.ThompsonA. J. (1999). Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: Comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 66, 480–484
