Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Psychometric study evaluates the s-SCIM IV and s-SCIM-SR measures for spinal cord injury assessments, suggesting their suitability for rehabilitation contexts.
Study design Psychometric study. Objectives To evaluate the data completeness, data distribution and ceiling/floor effects, internal consistency and convergent validity of the Swedish versions of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure IV (s-SCIM IV) and the Spinal Cord Independence Measure Self-report (s-SCIM-SR). Setting Swedish inpatient and outpatient spinal cord injury (SCI) rehabilitation. Methods The translation process was based on established guidelines with researchers, clinicians and consumers. s-SCIM IV and FIM TM assessments were performed by observation and/or interview, s-SCIM-SR through self-report using paper forms. Results In total, 101 participants (82% men) were included. There were no missing data for s-SCIM IV and 92% had answered all items in s-SCIM-SR. No ceiling or floor effects were observed. Cronbach´s alpha for the total s-SCIM IV scale was 0.91 (subscales 0.68–0.93) and for the total s-SCIM-SR scale 0.91 (subscales 0.62–0.93), with the lowest alphas for Respiration and Sphincter Management in both outcome measures. s-SCIM IV and s-SCIM-SR correlated strongly with each other and with FIM TM . Conclusions Our results support the data completeness, lack of ceiling/floor effects, internal consistency (except the Respiration and Sphincter Management subscale) and convergent validity of the s-SCIM IV and s-SCIM-SR. Based on this initial psychometric testing, these outcome measures can be considered suitable to assess physical independence in inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation and long-term follow-up after SCI, for both clinical and research purposes. The now available Swedish versions of SCIM will enable a uniform national assessment of SCI-specific physical independence and facilitate research and international collaborations and comparisons.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Antepohl et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: