Citation Isaac, L. (2016). The
FIM(TM). The Center for Outcome Measurement in Brain Injury.
combi/FIM ( accessed
This citation is for the COMBI web material. Dr. Isaac is
not the scale author for the FIM.
of the metric properties of the FIM(TM) have been reported extensively
(Granger et al., 1993; Heinemann et al., 1993; Linacre et al., 1994;
Dodds et al., 1994; Heinemann et al., 1997). Precision (the ability
of the instrument to detect meaningful change in level of function
during rehabilitation) has been observed to be high (Granger et
al., 1990). The FIM(TM) has clinically appropriate validity and
interrater agreement (Hamilton et al., 1991).
a Rasch Analysis of the FIM(TM), two separate domains of items were
defined: the motor domain consisting of 13 items and the cognitive
domain consisting of 5 items (Linacre et al., 1994; Heinemann et
al., 1993). Previous analyses of FIM(TM) data from the SCI Model
Systems suggest that the cognitive domain may be inappropriate for
individuals with SCI (Ditunno et al., 1995).
effects of the FIM(TM) at rehabilitation discharge, and particularly
at one year post injury were observed in the moderate and severely
injured TBI population (Hall et al., 1996). Forty-nine percent and
eighty-four percent of the sample had attained independence (average
score of 7 or 6) by discharge and one year post injury respectively.
In other words, the FIM(TM) is not sensitive to more subtle changes
expected after acute inpatient rehabilitation discharge.