Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014;36(1):23-31.
doi: 10.3109/09638288.2013.775360. Epub 2013 May 30.

The Neurological Impairment Scale: reliability and validity as a predictor of functional outcome in neurorehabilitation

Affiliations
Free PMC article

The Neurological Impairment Scale: reliability and validity as a predictor of functional outcome in neurorehabilitation

Lynne Turner-Stokes et al. Disabil Rehabil. 2014.
Free PMC article

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the construct validity and inter-rater reliability of the Neurological Impairment Scale (NIS) and compare ratings by medical and multidisciplinary teams in a mixed neurorehabilitation sample. To assess its concurrent and predictive validity as a predictor of outcome and functional gains during inpatient rehabilitation.

Methods: The NIS was rated in a consecutive cohort of patients (n = 428) recruited from nine specialist neurorehabilitation units in London. Dimensionality and internal consistency were explored through principal components analysis with Varimax rotation. Inter-rater reliability and the relationship between NIS and functional outcome (UK Functional Assessment Measure (FIM + FAM)) were analysed in a sub-sample (n = 94) from one centre.

Results: Factor analysis identified two principal domains ("Physical" and "Cognitive") together accounting for 35% of the variance: their Cronbach's alpha values were 0.76 and 0.67, respectively. Inter-rater reliability was excellent for overall scores between doctors (ICC = 0.95 (95% CI = 0.91-0.97)) and acceptable between the medical and multidisciplinary team (ICC = 0.92 (95% CI = 0.88-0.95)). Change in NIS-physical score predicted 29% of the variance in functional gain (FIM + FAM change).

Conclusion: These findings provide the first formal evidence for the validity and reliability of the NIS as a measure of neurological impairment for use in general neuro-rehabilitation settings. Its further application and exploration are now warranted.

Implications for rehabilitation: The extent of neurological recovery occurring during rehabilitation can make an important contribution to functional gains. In order to interpret measurement of functional outcome, we need to be able to identify changes at the level of impairment. Many of the available tools to measure severity of impairment are condition specific. The Neurological Impairment Scale (NIS) was developed for use across a broad range of disabling conditions alongside the UK FIM+FAM. This first formal examination of its psychometric properties provides evidence for its scalability, reliability and validity. The NIS has potential to provide useful information for case-mix adjustment and as a predictor of functional gain in general neurorehabilitation settings.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Box and whisker plots for total NIS scores at admission and discharge. Figure 1 shows a box and whiskers plot of the total NIS scores as rated by the MD and medical teams on admission and the MD team at discharge. There was no significant difference between the two admission ratings (mean difference 0.03, 95% CI −1.16–1.11, t = 0.045, p = 0.96). However, there was a significant reduction in team-rated total scores between admission and discharge (see Table 4).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Box and whisker plots for change in total FIM + FAM domain scores between admission and discharge in the impairment “responder” and “non-responder” groups. Figure 2 shows box and whiskers plots of the FIM + FAM change scores, in patients who did and did not demonstrate change in the NIS score during their rehabilitation programme. Both groups improved overall, but impairment “responders” made significantly greater gains in both motor and cognitive function than the “non-responders”.

References

    1. WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2002. Report No.: ISBN 91 4 154542 9.
    1. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Maryland State Med J. 1965;14:61–5. - PubMed
    1. Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS. The Functional Independence Measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. Adv Clin Rehabil. 1987;1:6–18. - PubMed
    1. Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Sherwin FS, et al. A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer JM, ed. Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurement. Baltimore: Brookes. 1987:13–47.
    1. Hamilton BB, Laughlin JA, Fiedler RC, Granger CV. Interrater reliability of the 7-level Functional Independence Measure (FIM) Scand J Rehabil Med. 1994;26:115–19. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources