Assessments

  • Erna Schönthaler
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Studium Pflege, Therapie, Gesundheit book series (SPTG)

Zusammenfassung

Inhaltliche Überlegungen, Methoden der Erhebung und die psychometrischen Eigenschaften sind wichtige Entscheidungsparameter für die Wahl eines Assessments. Das Kapitel vermittelt Grundlagen für die kritische Bewertung von Assessments und erleichtert damit den Entscheidungsprozess in der Praxis und in der Forschung. Quellen für die Suche nach Assessments und eine Checkliste am Ende des Kapitels erleichtern das Auffinden und Bewerten. Der Schwerpunkt liegt auf der Darstellung der Reliabilität, Validität und Praktikabilität. Zusätzlich werden die kulturelle Validität und die Responsivität von Assessments beschrieben.

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

Literatur

  1. Acquadro C, Conway K, Hareendran A, Aaronson N (2008) Literature review of methods to translate health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in multinational clinical trials. Value in Health 11 (3): 509–521CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Atler K, Malcolm M, Greife C (2015) A follow-up study on the relationship among participation, activity and motor function in survivors of stroke following constraint-induced therapy. Disability & Rehabilitation 37 (2): 121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidlines for the process of cross-cultural Adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (24): 3186–3191Google Scholar
  4. Bortz J, Döring N (2006) Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation: Für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler, 4. Aufl. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkin LB, Knol DL (2011) Measurement in medicine: A practical guide. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DIMDI (Deutsches Institut für Medizinische Dokumentation und Information) (2005) ICF – Internationale Klassifikation der Funktionsfähigkeit, Behinderung und Gesundheit. www.dimdi.de
  7. Fawcett AL (2007) Principles of assessment for occupational therapists and physiotherapists. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  8. Gjersing L, Caplehorn JRM, Clausen T (2010) Cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments: language, setting, time and statistical considerations. BMC Medical Research Methodology 10 (13): 1–10Google Scholar
  9. Kool J, Hilfiker R, Oesch P, Verra M, Wirz M (2014) Bewertung von Assessments. In: Wirz M, Köhler B, Marks D, Kool J, Sattelmayer M, Oesch P, Hilfiker R, Schädler S, Verra M, Lüthi H (Hrsg) Lehrbuch Assessments in der Rehabilitation. Huber, Bern, S 87–127Google Scholar
  10. Kraxner M (2011) Assessment: Nine-Hole-Peg-Test. Ergopraxis 4 (9): 30–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kraxner M (2014) Box and Block Test. Ergopraxis 7 (4): 36–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Landis JR, Koch GC (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorial data. Biometrics 33: 159–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Law M, Baptiste S, Carswell A, McColl MA, Polatajko H, Nancy P (2015) COPM – Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, 5th ed. Schulz-Kirchner, IdsteinGoogle Scholar
  14. Law MC, Baum CM, Dunn W (eds) (2005) Measuring occupational performance: Supporting best practice in occupational therapy, 2nd ed. Slack, ThorofareGoogle Scholar
  15. MacDermid JC, Law M, Michlovitz S (2014) Outcome measurement in evidence-based rehabilitation. In: Law M, MacDermid JC (eds) Evidence-based rehabilitation: A guide to practice. Slack, Thorofare, pp 65–104Google Scholar
  16. Mathiowetz V, Volland G, Kashman N, Weber K (1985a) Adult norms for the box and block test of manual dexterity. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 39 (6): 386–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mathiowetz V, Weber K, Kashman N, Volland G (1985b) Adult Norms for the nine hole peg test of finger dexterity. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health 5 (1): 24–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, De Vet HCW (2010a) The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 63 (7): 737–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, De Vet HCW (2010b) The COSMIN checkslist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status instruments: an international Delphi Study. Quality of Life Research 19 (4): 539–549CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Morfeld M, Kirchberger I, Bullinger M (2011) Fragebogen zum Gesundheitszustand. Hogrefe, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  21. Rehabmeasures (2010) Rehabilitation Measures Database: Statistics. www.rehabmeasures.org
  22. Reichenheim ME, Moraes CL (2007) Operationalizing the cross-cultural adaptation of epidemological measurement instruments. Rev Saúde Pública 41 (4): 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scherfer E, Bohls C, Freiberger E, Heise K-F, Hogan D (2006) Berg-Balance-Scale – deutsche Version; Übersetzung eines standardisierten Assessment-Instruments zur Beurteilung von Gleichgewicht und Sturzgefährdung. Physioscience 2 (2): 59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Swaine-Verdier A, Doward LC, Hagell P, Thorsen H, McKenna SP (2004) Adapting quality of life instruments. Value in Health 7 (1): S27–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RWJG, Bouter LM, De Vet HCW (2012) Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research 21 (4): 651–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. WHO (1997) WHOQL: Measuring quality of life. WHO, Genf, www.who.int/mental_health/media/68.pdf
  27. WHO (2015) Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. WHO, Genf, www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erna Schönthaler
    • 1
  1. 1.FH Campus WienErgotherapieWienDeutschland

Personalised recommendations