Buy this Article for $9.99

Have a coupon or promotional code? Enter it here:

When you buy this you'll get access to the ePub version, a downloadable PDF, and the ability to print the full article.

Authors

  1. Pike, Eric PT, DPT, MS, NFA
  2. Landers, Merrill R. PT, DPT, OCS

Abstract

Purpose: The Physical Mobility Scale (PMS) is used to evaluate the functional ability of aged adults. It has been shown to be reliable and has evidence to support its validity; however, there has been only 1 study performed to date that has addressed its responsiveness. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the responsiveness of the PMS using residents of a long-term care facility.

 

Methods: Seventy participants who were permanent residents of a long-term care facility were recruited for this study. To determine minimal detectable changes at the 95% confidence level (MDC95), each participant was assessed using the PMS on 2 occasions. To determine the clinically important difference, participants were also tested on 2 separate occasions 3 months apart. The treating physical therapist then used a 7-point Likert scale to rate the participants' change in function.

 

Results: Intrarater reliability for the pre- and post-PMS scores for all 70 participants was excellent (intraclass correlational coefficients [3,1] = 0.982). At the individual level, the MDC95 was 3.98 points. At the group level, the MDC95 for the 70 participants was 0.476 points. Minimal clinically important difference results suggest that a positive change of 5 points is "improved" clinically whereas a 4-point decrease in score is considered "worsened" clinically.

 

Conclusions: The psychometric properties of the PMS in an aging adult population of long-term residents are excellent, demonstrating good reliability and responsiveness. These results also offer some support to the validity of the PMS in this patient population. The utility of the PMS in the long-term care setting for assessing patient status and positive and/or negative functional outcomes is of value to both researcher and clinician.