The London handicap scale: a re-evaluation of its validity using standard scoring and simple summation

被引:45
作者
Jenkinson, C
Mant, J [1 ]
Carter, J
Wade, D
Winner, S
机构
[1] Univ Birmingham, Sch Med, Dept Primary Care & Gen Practice, Birmingham B15 2TT, W Midlands, England
[2] Univ Oxford, Inst Hlth Sci, Dept Publ Hlth, Hlth Serv Res Unit, Oxford, England
[3] Rivermead Rehabil Ctr, Oxford, England
[4] Radcliffe Infirm, Dept Clin Geratol, Oxford, England
关键词
London handicap scale; stroke rehabilitation; outcome measurement;
D O I
10.1136/jnnp.68.3.365
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective-To assess the validity of the London handicap scale (LHS) using a simple unweighted scoring system compared with traditional weighted scoring Methods-323 patients admitted to hospital with acute stroke were followed up by interview 6 months after their stroke as part of a trial looking at the impact of a family support organiser. Outcome measures included the six item LHS, the Dartmouth COOP charts, the Frenchay activities index, the Barthel index, and the hospital anxiety and depression scale, Patients' handicap score was calculated both using the standard procedure (with weighting) for the LHS, and using a simple summation procedure without weighting (U-LHS). Construct validity of both LHS and U-LHS was assessed by testing their correlations with the other outcome measures. Results-Cronbach's a for the LHS was 0.83, The U-LHS was highly correlated with the LHS (r=0.98). Correlation of U-LHS with the other outcome measures gave very similar results to correlation of LHS with these measures. Conclusion-Simple summation scoring of the LHS does not lead to any change in the measurement properties of the instrument compared with standard weighted scoring. Unweighted scores are easier to calculate and interpret, so it is recommended that these are used.
引用
收藏
页码:365 / 367
页数:3
相关论文
共 21 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 1980, International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps
  • [2] Cronbach LJ, 1951, PSYCHOMETRIKA, V16, P297
  • [3] Ebrahim S, 1990, MEASURING OUTCOMES M, P27
  • [4] FEINSTEIN AR, 1992, MED CARE S, V20, pMS50
  • [5] Harwood R H, 1994, Qual Health Care, V3, P11, DOI 10.1136/qshc.3.1.11
  • [6] HANDICAP ONE-YEAR AFTER A STROKE - VALIDITY OF A NEW SCALE
    HARWOOD, RH
    GOMPERTZ, P
    EBRAHIM, S
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY, 1994, 57 (07) : 825 - 829
  • [7] Harwood RH, 1995, MANUAL LONDON HANDIC
  • [8] WHY ARE WE WEIGHTING - A CRITICAL-EXAMINATION OF THE USE OF ITEM WEIGHTS IN A HEALTH-STATUS MEASURE
    JENKINSON, C
    [J]. SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1991, 32 (12) : 1413 - 1416
  • [9] SENSITIVITY TO CHANGE OF HEALTH-STATUS MEASURES IN A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL - COMPARISON OF THE COOP CHARTS AND THE SF-36
    JENKINSON, C
    LAWRENCE, K
    MCWHINNIE, D
    GORDON, J
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 1995, 4 (01) : 47 - 52
  • [10] KANE RL, 1987, MED CARE, V25, pS178