Skip Navigation

Age and Ageing 2005 34(3):228-232; doi:10.1093/ageing/afi063
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (8)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sainsbury, A.
Right arrow Articles by Young, J. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sainsbury, A.
Right arrow Articles by Young, J. B.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Systematic Review

Reliability of the Barthel Index when used with older people

Anita Sainsbury1, Gudrun Seebass2, Aruna Bansal1 and John B. Young1

1 St Luke’s Hospital, Little Horton Road, Bradford BD5 0NA, UK
2 General and Geriatric Medicine, St James’s Hospital, Leeds LS7 9TF, UK

Address correspondence to: G. Seebass, General and Geriatric Medicine, St James’s Hospital (c/o Prof Mulley’s Secretary), Beckett Wing, Beckett Street, Leeds LS7 9TF, UK. Fax: (+44) 0113 2429195. Email: Gudrun.Seebass{at}leedsth.nhs.uk

Abstract

Objective: the Barthel Index (BI) has been recommended for the functional assessment of older people but the reliability of the measure for this patient group is uncertain. To investigate this issue we undertook a systematic review to identify relevant studies from which an overview is presented.

Method: studies investigating the reliability of the BI were obtained by searching Medline, Cinahl and Embase to January 2003. Screening for potentially relevant papers and data extraction of the studies meeting the inclusion criteria were carried out independently by two researchers.

Results: the scope of the 12 studies identified included all the common clinical settings relevant to older people. No study investigated test–retest reliability. Inter-rater reliability was reported as ‘fair’ to ‘moderate’ agreement for individual BI items, and a high percentage agreement for the total BI score. However, these findings were difficult to interpret as few studies reported the prevalence of the disability categories for the study populations. There may be considerable inter-observer disagreement (95% CI of ±4 points). There was evidence that the BI might be less reliable in patients with cognitive impairment and when scores obtained by patient interview are compared with patient testing. The role of assessor training and/or guidelines on the reliability of the BI has not been investigated.

Conclusions: although the BI is highly recommended, there remain important uncertainties concerning its reliability when used with older people. Further studies are justified to investigate this issue.

Keywords: Barthel Index, functional assessment, reliability, multiple diagnoses, older people, elderly

Received May 17, 2004; Revision received January 17, 2005. accepted in revised form January 17, 2005.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Age AgeingHome page
A. Supervia, D. Aranda, M. A. Marquez, A. Aguirre, E. Skaf, and J. Gutierrez
Predicting length of hospitalisation of elderly patients, using the Barthel Index
Age Ageing, May 1, 2008; 37(3): 339 - 342.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Age AgeingHome page
F. Formiga, J. Mascaro, and R. Pujol
Inter-rater reliability of the Barthel Index
Age Ageing, November 1, 2005; 34(6): 655 - 656.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.