Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Outcome Measures in Clinical Practice: Five Questions to Consider When Assessing Patient Outcome

  • Outcome Measurement in Rehabilitation (M.E. Kho, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The use of outcome measures (OMs) in clinical practice has become increasingly important, due to the expectations to account for patient outcomes and justify healthcare expenditures. With the ability to assess patients’ current status and change over time, OMs can inform clinical decision-making and help clinicians and patients better understand their current function and projected recovery. When assessing outcomes, there are five key considerations for clinicians: confidence in a measured value; the extent to which valid inferences can be drawn from a measured value; the extent to which valid inferences concerning a patient’s change status can be made; the patient specific target value; and the ideal reassessment interval. The purpose of this paper is to provide a guide to help clinicians to choose and effectively utilize OMs. We will address the five important application questions to consider, illustrated with clinical examples using the 6-min walk test in different patient populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

References of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. Abrams D, Davidson M, Harrick J, Harcourt P, Zylinski M, Clancy J. Monitoring the change: current trends in outcome measure usage in physiotherapy. Man Ther. 2006;11:46–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Duncan E, Murray J. The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:96. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-96.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Salbach N, Guilcher S, Jaglal S. Physical therapists’ perceptions and use of standardized assessments of walking ability post-stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43:543–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Binkley J, Stratford P, Lott S, Riddle D, Network TNAORR. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. Phys Ther. 1999;79(4):371–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Steffen T, Hacker T, Mollinger L. Age- and gender-related test performance in community-dwelling elderly people: six-minute walk test, berg balance scale, timed up & go test, and gait speeds. Phys Ther. 2002;82(2):128–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. King G, Wright V, Russell D. Understanding paediatric rehabilitation therapists’ lack of use of outcome measures. Disabili Rehabil. 2011;33:2662–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jette D, Halbert J, Iverson C, Micelli E, Shah P. Use of standardized outcome measures in physical therapist practice: perceptions and applications. Phys Ther. 2009;89:125–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Copeland J, Taylor W, Dean S. Factors influencing the use of outcome measures for patients with low back pain: a survey of New Zealand physical therapists. Phys Ther. 2008;88:1492–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. •• Riddle D, Stratford P. Is this change real?: Interpreting patient outcomes in physical therapy. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company; 2013. This comprehensive text provides an in-depth review of measurement properties. It is clinically relevant and assists clinicians in understanding how to make meaningful use of outcome measures in practice.

  10. Enright P. The six-minute walk test. Respir Care. 2003;48(8):783–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Landis J, Koch G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(1):231–40. doi:10.1519/15184.1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med. 1998;26(4):217–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Unver B, Kahraman T, Kalkan S, Yuksel E, Karatosun V. Reliability of the six-minute walk test after total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int. 2013;23(6):541–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kennedy D, Stratford P, Wessel J, Gollish J, Penney D. Assessing stability and change of four performance measures: a longitudinal study evaluating outcome following total hip and total knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2005;6:3. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-6-3.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. du Bois R, Weycker D, Albera C, et al. Six-minute-walk test in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;182:1231–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bellet R, Adams L, Morris N. The six-minute walk test in outpatient cardiac rehabilitation: validity, reliability, and responsiveness—a systematic review. Physiotherapy. 2012;98:277–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fulk G, Echternach J, Nof L, O’Sullivan S. Clinometric properties of the six-minute walk test in individuals undergoing rehabilitation poststroke. Physiother Theory Pract. 2008;24(3):195–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Casillas J-M, Hannequin A, Besson D, et al. Walking tests during the exercise training: specific use for cardiac rehabilitation. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2013;56:561–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kristjansdottir A, Ragnarsdottir M, Einarrson M, Torfason B. A comparison of the six-minute walk test and symptom limited graded exercise test for phase II cardiac rehabilitation of older adults. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2004;27:65–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Enright P, Sherrill D. Reference equations for six-minute walk in healthy adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;158:1384–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Holland A, Hill C, Rasekaba T, Lee A, Naughton M, McDonald C. Updating the minimal important difference for six-minute walk test in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91:221–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stratford P, Riddle D. Assessing the amount of change in an outcome measure is not the same as assessing the importance of change. Physiother Can. 2013;65:244–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Balke B. A simple field test for the assessment of physical fitness. Report Civil Aeromedical Research Institute (U.S.). 1963;53:pp 1–8.

  25. Casanova C, Celli B, Barria P, et al. The 6-min walk distance in healthy subjects: reference standards from seven countries. Eur Respir J. 2011;37:150–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ko V, Naylor J, Harris I, Crosbie J, Yeo A. The six-minute walk test is an excellent predictor of functional ambulation after total knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:145. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-145.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Herridge M, Tansey C, Matte A, et al. Functional disability 5 years after acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(14):1293–304.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kennedy D, Stratford P, Riddle D, Hanna S, Gollish J. Assessing recovery and establishing prognosis following total knee arthroplasty. Phys Ther. 2008;88:22–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kennedy D, Stratford P, Robarts S, Gollish J. Using outcome measure results to facilitate clinical decisions in the first year after total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011;41(4):232–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Stratford P. Diagnosing patient change: impact of reassessment interval. Physiother Can. 2000;52:225–8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Rehabilitation Science, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, McMaster University, Room 403, 1400 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 1C7, Canada

    Julie C. Reid, Michelle E. Kho & Paul W. Stratford

  2. Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation, Hamilton General Hospital, 237 Barton Street East, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Julie C. Reid

  3. St. Joseph’s Healthcare Physiotherapy Department, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Michelle E. Kho

Authors
  1. Julie C. Reid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michelle E. Kho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul W. Stratford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie C. Reid.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Outcome Measurement in Rehabilitation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reid, J.C., Kho, M.E. & Stratford, P.W. Outcome Measures in Clinical Practice: Five Questions to Consider When Assessing Patient Outcome. Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep 3, 248–254 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40141-015-0098-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40141-015-0098-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation