Assessment of psychometric properties, cross-cultural adaptation, and translation of the Turkish version of the ICU mobility scale

Conclusion: This study suggests that the IMS Turkish version is a reliable and valid scale for assessing functional status and mobility level in ICU patients.Key words: ICU mobility scale, functional status, intensive care unit

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯

Objective & Hypothesis:Background/aim: The aim of the study was to carry out the cultural adaptation and translation of the ICU mobility scale (IMS) into Turkish and research the psychometric properties.

📊

Key Findings & Data:The measures such as construct validity, intra and interrater reliability, and internal consistency of the IMS Turkish version were assessed.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: This study suggests that the IMS Turkish version is a reliable and valid scale for assessing functional status and mobility level in ICU patients.Key words: ICU mobility scale, functional status, intensive care unit

🔬Design:Research Article

📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample

⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background/aim: The aim of the study was to carry out the cultural adaptation and translation of the ICU mobility scale (IMS) into Turkish and research the psychometric properties. Materials and methods: This study was based on methodological design. The IMS was translated from English to the Turkish through a regularised translation process. Two physiotherapists assessed patients independently in the coronary intensive care unit. The measures such as construct validity, intra and interrater reliability, and internal consistency of the IMS Turkish version were assessed. Results: A total of 70 intensive care patients were included in the study. The intrarater and interrater reliability of the IMS was excellent. The weighted Kappa value was 0.92 (0.87–0.96) for the intrarater reliability, and 0.87 (0.80–0.93) for the interrater reliability. There were significant correlations between the IMS and functional status score for the intensive care unit (r = 0.83), Perme intensive care unit mobility score (r = 0.84), Katz activities of daily living (r = 0.73), handgrip strength (r = 0.62), knee extension strength (r = 0.46), and age (r = –0.44). Conclusion: This study suggests that the IMS Turkish version is a reliable and valid scale for assessing functional status and mobility level in ICU patients.Key words: ICU mobility scale, functional status, intensive care unit

🔖

Cite This Article

KAHRAMAN, T., SAVCI, S., KAHRAMAN, B. Ö., ACAR, S., TANRIVERDİ, A., ŞENTÜRK, B., AKDENİZ, B., ÖZPELİT, E., https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9048-1116, H. (2022). Assessment of psychometric properties, cross-cultural adaptation, and translation of the Turkish version of the ICU mobility scale. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 51 - Sayı: 3, 1153–1157. https://ajindex.com/articles/609566

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

Marshall JC, Bosco L, Adhikari NK, Connolly B, Diaz JV et al. What is an intensive care unit? A report of the task force of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine. Journal of Critical Care 2017
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.07.015 2. Zhang L, Hu W, Cai Z, Liu J, Wu J et al. Early mobilization of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2019
14 (10): e0223185. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223185 3. Arias-Fernández P, Romero-Martin M, Gómez-Salgado J, Fernández-García D Rehabilitation and early mobilization in the critical patient: systematic review. Journal of Physical Therapy Science 2018
30 (9): 1193-1201. doi: 10.1589/ jpts.30.1193 4. Parry SM, Granger CL, Berney S, Jones J, Beach L et al. Assessment of impairment and activity limitations in the critically ill: a systematic review of measurement instruments and their clinimetric properties. Intensive Care Medicine 2015
41 (5): 744-762. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-3672-x 5. Hodgson C, Needham D, Haines K, Bailey M, Ward A et al. Feasibility and inter-rater reliability of the ICU mobility scale. Heart and Lung 2014
43 (1): 19-24. doi: 10.1016/j. hrtlng.2013.11.003 6. Tipping CJ, Bailey MJ, Bellomo R, Berney S, Buhr H et al. The ICU mobility scale has construct and predictive validity and is responsive. A multicenter observational study. Annals of the American Thoracic Society 2016
13 (6): 887-893. doi: 10.1513/ AnnalsATS.201510-717OC 7. Kawaguchi YM, Nawa RK, Figueiredo TB, Martins L, PiresNeto RC. Perme intensive care unit mobility score and ICU mobility scale: translation into Portuguese and cross-cultural adaptation for use in Brazil. Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia 2016
42 (6): 429-434. doi: 10.1590/S1806-37562015000000301 8. Wilches Luna EC, Hernández NL, Siriani De Oliveira A, Kenji Nawa R, Perme C et al. Perme ICU mobility score (perme score) and the ICU mobility scale (IMS): translation and cultural adaptation for the Spanish language. Colombia Médica 2018
49 (4): 265-272. doi: 10.25100/cm.v49i3.4042 9. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000
25 (24): 3186-3191. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 10. Zanni JM, Korupolu R, Fan E, Pradhan P, Janjua K et al. Rehabilitation therapy and outcomes in acute respiratory failure: an observational pilot project. Journal of Critical C