Development and validation of the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Clinical Rehabilitation (USER)

• Published in: Clinical rehabilitation Vol. 23; no. 10; pp. 909 - 917
• Main Authors: Post, Marcel WM, van de Port, Ingrid GL, Kap, Bert, Berdenis van Berlekom, Steven H
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01.10.2009; Sage Publications Ltd
• Subjects: Activities of daily living; Adult; Aged; Cognition & reasoning; Cognitive functioning; Disability Evaluation; Fatigue; Fatigue - diagnosis; Female; Humans; Male; Measures; Middle Aged; Mood Disorders - diagnosis; Moods; Netherlands; Observer Variation; Outcome Assessment (Health Care); Pain; Pain Measurement; Quantitative psychology; Rehabilitation; Netherlands
• ISSN: 0269-2155; 1477-0873
• DOI: 10.1177/0269215509341524

Objective: The Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation (USER) is a measure of functional independence that covers physical functioning (mobility, self-care), cognitive functioning and additional domains of pain, fatigue and mood. USER is implemented in the Netherlands as a generic rehabilitation outcome measure. This article reports the development and psychometric characteristics of USER. Design: (1) Inter-rater reliability study and (2) responsiveness study with measurements at admission and at discharge from clinical rehabilitation. Setting: Three rehabilitation facilities in the Netherlands. Patients: Rehabilitation inpatients (N = 319). Interventions: Not applicable. Main outcome measures: Effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM) of USER scales were compared to those of the Barthel Index, Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and to relevant scales of the SF-36. Results: Inter-rater reliability of USER was satisfactory to good. Strong correlations were found between the physical and cognitive functioning scores of USER, the Barthel Index and FIM (0.84—0.94). Correlations between USER pain, fatigue and mood scores and SF-36 scores were also strong (0.58—0.84). Responsiveness of USER physical functioning (1.0—1.2) was very good and slightly better than responsiveness of the Barthel Index (0.9—1.1) and the FIM motor score (0.8—1.1). Responsiveness of the USER cognitive score was below standard (0.2—0.3), but better than responsiveness of the FIM cognitive scores (0.1—0.2). Conclusions: USER is a reliable, valid and responsive measure of functional independence that can be used as an alternative for the FIM. The pain, fatigue and mood scores were adapted after this study and need additional validation.