Primary Image
![Activity Measure for Post Acute Care (1) Activity Measure for Post Acute Care (1)](https://i0.wp.com/www.sralab.org/sites/default/files/styles/header_1280x410_/public/migrated/rmd-header-default.jpg?h=1d9a1ab2&itok=gyYqIpOw)
- Rehabilitation Measures Database
- Activity Measure for Post Acute Care
share
- LinkedIn Logo linkedin
Last Updated
![Activity Measure for Post Acute Care (2) Activity Measure for Post Acute Care (2)](https://i0.wp.com/www.sralab.org/sites/default/files/styles/search_featured_large_320x370/public/2024-02/Pilot.Projects.800px_0.png?itok=CryCCpMQ)
Expertise, Instruction and Mentorship
Center for Smart Use of Technologies to Assess Real World Outcomes (C-STAR)
Learn more
![Activity Measure for Post Acute Care (3) Activity Measure for Post Acute Care (3)](https://i0.wp.com/www.sralab.org/sites/default/files/styles/search_featured_large_320x370/public/2024-04/Academy.jpg?itok=a3DAoKjC)
Sign Up for our Upcoming SCI Course
June 5–7
In-person or Virtual
Act now—Seats are limited!
Offered by Academy, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab
Register Now
Purpose
The AM-PAC assesses activity limitations based on World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).
The Computer Adaptive Test (CAT)version of the AM-PAC selects items designed to match a patient’s functional abilities, reducing the total number of itemson the assessmentwhile increasing the measure's validity.
Conversion tables to CMS G-codes are available for all AM-PAC scales.
AM-PAC Activity Domains: | ||
Applied Cognitive | Personal & Instrumental/Daily Activity | Movement &Physical/Basic Mobility |
Communication | Grooming and Hygiene | Bend/Stand/Carry |
PrintInformation | Feeding and Meal Prep | Ambulation |
New Learning | Dressing | Transfers |
Social | Instrumental | WC Skills |
Link to Instrument
Acronym AM-PAC
Area of Assessment
Activities of Daily Living
Cognition
Functional Mobility
Assessment Type
Patient Reported Outcomes
Administration Mode
Computer
Cost
Not Free
Cost Description
AM-PAC is free for academic research use; there is a charge for clinical/commercial use.
Diagnosis/Conditions
- Arthritis + Joint Conditions
- Cancer Rehabilitation
- Parkinson's Disease & Movement Disorders
- Spinal Cord Injury
- Stroke Recovery
Populations
Stroke
Movement and Gait Disorders
Mixed Populations
Joint Pain and Fractures
Key Descriptions
- AM-PAC can be a patient-or clinician-reported measure.
- In each domain, AM-PAC scores have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.
- AM-PAC Activity Domains:
1) Applied Cognitive
2) Personal & Instrumental/Daily Activity
3) Movement &Physical/Basic Mobility
4) Communication
5) Grooming and Hygiene
6) Bend/Stand/Carry
7) PrintInformation
8) Feeding and Meal Prep
9) Ambulation
10) New Learning
11) Dressing
12) Transfers
13) Social
14) Instrumental
15) Wheelchair Skills
Number of Items
5-8 per domain.
Inpatient short: 6 per domain.
Outpatient short: 15-18 per domain.
Equipment Required
- Computer adaptive test
- Paper and Pencil for in-patient and out-patient short forms
Time to Administer
Varies depending on AM-PAC version used; As a Computer Adaptive Test (CAT), the time to administer will slightly vary between patients.
Required Training
Reading an Article/Manual
Age Ranges
Adult
18 - 64
years
Elderly Adult
65 +
years
Instrument Reviewers
Initially reviewed by Jason Raad and the Rehabilitation Measures Team; Updated by Tammie Keller Johnson PT, DPT, NCS and the TBI EDGE task force of the neurology section of the APTA in September 2012; Updated in 2019 by Bridget Hahn, OTD, OTR/L, Erin Thrasher, OTS, Carley Rowe, OTS, Carissa Studer, OTS and Mackenzie Traub, OTS. Reviewed in June 2020 by Rachel Bond, BA.
ICF Domain
Activity
Measurement Domain
Activities of Daily Living
Cognition
Motor
Professional Association Recommendation
Recommendations for use of the instrument from the Neurology Section of the American Physical Therapy Association’s Multiple Sclerosis Taskforce (MSEDGE), Parkinson’s Taskforce (PD EDGE), Spinal Cord Injury Taskforce (PD EDGE), Stroke Taskforce (StrokEDGE), Traumatic Brain Injury Taskforce (TBI EDGE), and Vestibular Taskforce (Vestibular EDGE) are listed below. These recommendations were developed by a panel of research and clinical experts using a modified Delphi process.
For detailed information about how recommendations were made, please visit: http://www.neuropt.org/go/healthcare-professionals/neurology-section-outcome-measures-recommendations
Abbreviations: | |
HR | Highly Recommend |
R | Recommend |
LS / UR | Reasonable to use, but limited study in target group / Unable to Recommend |
NR | Not Recommended |
Recommendations based on level of care in which the assessment is taken:
Acute Care | Inpatient Rehabilitation | Skilled Nursing Facility | Outpatient Rehabilitation | Home Health | |
TBI EDGE | NR | LS | LS | NR | NR |
Recommendations for use based on ambulatory status after brain injury:
Completely Independent | Mildly dependant | Moderately Dependant | Severely Dependant | |
TBI EDGE | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Recommendations for entry-level physical therapy education and use in research:
Students should learn to administer this tool? (Y/N) | Students should be exposed to tool? (Y/N) | Appropriate for use in intervention research studies? (Y/N) | Is additional research warranted for this tool (Y/N) | |
TBI EDGE | No | No | Yes | Not reported |
Considerations
- Can be administered with either a paper and pencil or computer-based version.
- Accurate scoring can be obtained from either the setting-specific short form versions or Computer Adaptive Testing forms.
- Recent work using patient-reported outcomes suggests that a short-form version of the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) may be more sensitive than the FIM in assessing functional gains and losses once a patient returns to the community (Coster et al., 2006).
- Haley et al, 2006, reported that fewer items (33%) and less time (44%) is required to complete the AM-PAC-CAT than the AM-PAC-66 (short form).
Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Pleasee-mail us!
Mixed Populations
back to PopulationsStandard Error of Measurement (SEM)
AM-PAC Computer Adaptive Test (CAT):(Jette et al., 2007;n= 1815 retrospective study; patients diagnosed with spine, lower-extremity, and upper-extremity impairments)
Average Standard Error of Estimate by Ability Score: | ||||
Scale | Score Range | |||
10-29 | 30-49 | 50-69 | 70-90 | |
Basic Mobility; Mean S.E. | 4.45 | 2.16 | 1.99 | 3.19 |
95% C.I. | +/- 8.72 | +/- 4.23 | +/- 3.90 | +/- 6.25 |
Daily Activity; Mean S.E. | 2.60 | 1.98 | 5.32 | N/A |
95% C.I. | +/- 5.10 | +/- 3.88 | +/- 10.43 | N/A |
C.I. = Confidence Interval S.E. = Standard Error of Measurement |
AM-PAC Inpatient Mobility Short Form:(Hoyer et al., 2017; n=118; mean age = 56.6)
- Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)= 1.6
Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)
AM-PAC Computer Adaptive Test (CAT):(Jette et al., 2007)
- Basic Mobility: MDC = 4.28
- Daily Activity: MDC = 3.70
AM-PAC Inpatient Mobility Short Form:(Hoyer et al., 2017)
- MDC95% CI= 4.5.
Cut-Off Scores
AM-PAC Inpatient Mobility Short Form:(Hoyer et al., 2017; n=118; mean age = 56.6)
- 4-point ordinal scale, with a raw score range from 6-24
- A score of 1 indicates that the participant was unable to perform the task and a score of 4 indicates the participant was independent in completing the task
- A higher score indicates fewer limitations in functional performance
Medically Complex: (Jette et al., 2014)
- Basic Mobility: 42.9
- Daily Activity: 39.4
Normative Data
Patients with Hip Fracture:(Latham et al., 2008;n= 108; patients aged 65 or older; assessed within 17 days of surgical repair of a unilateral hip fracture; International Sample)
AM-PAC and Related Measure Norms: | ||
AM-PAC Physical Mobility | mean (SD) | median (range) |
Baseline | 48.0 (10.0) | 51.9 (19.2–62.7) |
Week 12 | 59.7 (8.2) | 60.2 (29.0–82.5) |
AM-PAC Personal Care | mean (SD) | median (range) |
Baseline | 49.2 (8.0) | 48.5 (22.0–68.0) |
Week 12 | 57.0 (8.8) | 58.2 (35.0–68.1) |
PFP-10 | mean (SD) | median (range) |
Baseline | 10.4 (9.9) | 6.8 (0–45.2) |
Week 12 | 24.5 (18.4) | 21.3 (0–78.1) |
SPPB | mean (SD) | median (range) |
Baseline | 4.7 (2.8) | 5.0 (0–12.0) |
Week 12 | 7.9 (2.6) | 8.0 (0–12.0) |
Gait speed (m/s) | mean (SD) | median (range) |
Baseline | 0.50 (0.28) | 0.45 (0.01–1.33) |
Week 12 | 0.77 (0.35) | 0.76 (0.003–1.83) |
6MWT (m) | mean (SD) | median (range) |
Baseline | 121.0 (103.0) | 109.6 (0–408.1) |
Week 12 | 251.0 (155.5) | 259.0 (0–651.9) |
SF-36 PF | mean (SD) | median (range) |
Baseline | 23.0 (21.8) | 15.0 (0–90.0) |
Week 12 | 57.5 (25.5) | 57.5 (0–100) |
Orthopedic outpatient: Individuals with spine, lower-extremtiy and upper extremity impairments:(Jette et al, 2007;n= 1815 seen in outpatient clinics)
Domain | n | Admission Mean (SD) | Discharge Mean (SD) |
Total | 1703 | 63.26 (9.19) | 68.71 (8.41) |
Spine | 666 | 63.57 (7.78) | 68.40 (8.59) |
EU | 462 | 68.42 (8.24) | 71.20 (7.74) |
LE | 575 | 58.75 (9.16) | 67.07 (8.26 |
Medically Complex: (Jette et al., 2014)
First Visit “6-Clicks” Patient Scores
Daily activity | 39.9 (39.2, 39.4) |
Basic mobility | 43.8 (43.7, 44.0) |
Patients discharged to home | |
Daily activity | 44.9 (44.8, 45.0) |
Basic mobility | 50.7 (50.6, 50.9) |
Patients discharged to institution | |
Daily activity | 34.9 (34.8, 35.0) |
Basic mobility | 38.5 (38.4, 38.6) |
Test/Retest Reliability
Postacute Care Patients: (Andres et al., 2003;n= 25; mean age = 65.0 (range = 23-87) years; Impairments, Neurologic = 32%, Orthopdedic = 32%, Medically complex = 36%; mean time between assessments = 2.7 to 3.5 (range 1 to 7) days)
Test-retest Reliability: | |||
Strength | ICC | 95% CI | |
Personal and instrumental | Excellent | 0.96 | 0.92–0.98 |
Movement and physical | Excellent | 0.97 | 0.92–0.98 |
Applied cognition | Excellent | 0.91 | 0.70–0.96 |
CI = Confidence Interval |
AM-PAC Inpatient Mobility Short Form:(Hoyer et al., 2017; n=118; mean age = 56.6)
- Excellent: ICC= 0.91-0.96
Interrater/Intrarater Reliability
Postacute Care Patients: (Andres et al., 2003; proxy = primary physical, occupational therapist or family member)
InterraterReliability: | |||
Strength | ICC | 95% CI | |
Personal and instrumental | Excellent | 0.90 | 0.73–0.94 |
Movement and physical | Excellent | 0.86 | 0.68–0.96 |
Applied cognition | Adequate | 0.68 | 0.55–0.89 |
CI = Confidence Interval |
Internal Consistency
AM-PAC Inpatient Mobility Short Form:(Hoyer et al., 2017; n=118; mean age = 56.6)
- Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha= 0.94-0.96
Medically Complex: (McDonough et al., 2016, convenience sample of n=235 patients in outpatient setting)
- Good: Cronbach’s alpha= > 0.80 in the score range from 17~56, and more limited performance for scores beyond 56. The IRT-based internal consistency reliability: 0.86, which is comparable to that of the full item bank (0.89).
Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)
Patients with Hip Fracture:(Latham et al., 2008)
Adequate to Excellentconvergent validity (see below)
Performance-Based and Self-Report Function Measure Correlations* at Week 12 | |||||
AM-PAC Physical Mobility | AM-PAC Personal Care | SF-36 PF | PFP-10 | SPPB Total | |
AM-PAC Physical Mobility | 1 | 0.71 | 0.84 | 0.64 | 0.65 |
AM-PAC Personal Care | 1 | 0.68 | 0.63 | 0.55 | |
SF-36 PF | 1 | 0.69 | 0.67 | ||
PFP-10 | 1 | 0.73 | |||
SPPB Total | 1 | ||||
Gait Speed Value | |||||
6MWT | |||||
r < .31= Poor r .31 to .59 = Adequate r > .6 = Excellent | |||||
SF-36 PF = Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Function Scale PFP-10 = Physical Functional Performance Test SPPB = Short Physical Performance Batter 6MWT = Six-Minute Walk Test *Spearman Correlations |
Medically Complex: (Jette et al., 2014, n=84,466, Mean Age=69, SD=15.6).
- Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values for Various Basic Mobility and Daily Activity Scores
Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values for Various Basic Mobility
Basic Mobility Score, scale (raw) | Sensitivity | Specificity | Positive Predictive Value | Negative Predictive Value | |
25.0 (6.5) | 0.03 | 0.98 | 0.56 | 0.50 | |
27.5 (7.5) | 0.04 | 0.97 | 0.58 | 0.50 | |
29.6 (8.5) | 0.09 | 0.94 | 0.61 | 0.51 | |
31.4 (9.5) | 0.11 | 0.93 | 0.61 | 0.51 | |
33.1 (10.5) | 0.16 | 0.90 | 0.62 | 0.52 | |
34.6 (11.5) | 0.23 | 0.87 | 0.64 | 0.53 | |
36.0 (12.5) | 0.30 | 0.84 | 0.65 | 0.54 | |
37.4 (13.5) | 0.34 | 0.82 | 0.65 | 0.55 | |
38.8 (14.5) | 0.39 | 0.80 | 0.65 | 0.57 | |
40.1 (15.5) | 0.44 | 0.77 | 0.66 | 0.58 | |
41.5 (16.5) | 0.51 | 0.73 | 0.66 | 0.58 | |
42.9 (17.5) | 0.62 | 0.67 | 0.65 | 0.64 | |
44.5 (18.5) | 0.80 | 0.54 | 0.63 | 0.73 | |
46.6 (19.5) | 0.85 | 0.49 | 0.63 | 0.77 | |
49.0 (20.5) | 0.90 | 0.42 | 0.61 | 0.81 | |
51.8 (21.5) | 0.93 | 0.37 | 0.60 | 0.84 | |
55.1 (22.5) | 0.96 | 0.29 | 0.58 | 0.89 | |
59.0 (23.5) | 0.98 | 0.21 | 0.56 | 0.93 |
Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values for Various Daily Activity
Daily Activity Score, scale (raw) | Sensitivity | Specificity | Positive Predictive Value | Negative Predictive Value |
18.6 (6.5) | 0.02 | 0.98 | 0.52 | 0.50 |
21.5 (7.5) | 0.03 | 0.97 | 0.52 | 0.50 |
24.1 (8.5) | 0.04 | 0.96 | 0.53 | 0.50 |
26.3 (9.5) | 0.05 | 0.95 | 0.54 | 0.50 |
28.2 (10.5) | 0.07 | 0.94 | 0.55 | 0..50 |
29.8 (11.5) | 0.10 | 0.93 | 0.56 | 0.51 |
31.3 (12.5) | 0.14 | 0.90 | 0.57 | 0.51 |
32.7 (13.5) | 0.19 | 0.86 | 0.58 | 0.52 |
34.0 (14.5) | 0.27 | 0.81 | 0.59 | 0.53 |
35.3 (15.5) | 0.39 | 0.73 | 0.59 | 0.54 |
36.6 (16.5) | 0.53 | 0.66 | 0.61 | 0.58 |
38.0 (17.5) | 0.64 | 0.60 | 0.61 | 0.62 |
39.4 (18.5) | 0.77 | 0.49 | 0.60 | 0.68 |
41.1 (19.5) | 0.88 | 0.37 | 0.58 | 0.75 |
43.2 (20.5) | 0.93 | 0.30 | 0.57 | 0.82 |
45.7 (21.5) | 0.97 | 0.23 | 0.56 | 0.88 |
49.1 (22.5) | 0.98 | 0.19 | 0.55 | 0.92 |
52.8 (23.5) | 0.99 | 0.16 | 0.54 | 0.93 |
Construct Validity
AM-PAC Computer Adaptive Test (CAT):(Jette et al., 2007)
Significant differences in basic mobility were observed in the subject’s acuity level and surgical status.
AM-PAC Difference Scores forBasic Mobility and Daily Activity: | ||||||
Scale | Acuity | Postsurgical Treatment | ||||
Basic Mobility | < 35 days | > 35 days | Difference | Yes | No | Difference |
Admission | 63.45 (9.39) | 62.85 (9.63) | 0.60 | 59.00 (10.14) | 64.69 (8.37) | -5.70* |
Discharge | 70.11 (8.17) | 68.14 (8.30) | 1.97* | 66.73 (7.79) | 69.34 (8.52) | -2.61* |
Increase | 6.62 (8.60) | 5.22 (7.94) | 1.40* | 7.85 (8.62) | 4.65 (7.57) | 3.20* |
Daily Activity | < 35 days | > 35 days | Difference | Yes | No | Difference |
Admission | 56.31 (8.28) | 56.18 (8.43) | 0.13 | 54.32 (8.19) | 57.88 (7.67) | -3.56* |
Discharge | 61.85 (5.96) | 60.12 (7.06) | 1.73* | 60.70 (6.67) | 60.95 (6.50) | -0.25 |
Increase | 5.53 (7.60) | 3.89 (6.95) | 1.64* | 6.38 (8.10) | 3.07 (6.24) | 3.31* |
*p < 0.05 |
Content Validity
The AM-PAC was developed using the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).
Face Validity
Items for the original prototype of the AM-PAC were created based on the ICF activities domain. Items relevant to individuals in post-acute care setting were chosen. The items were reviewed by 10 experts and feedback was provided by individuals with disabilities. (Haley et al., 2004)
Many items were selected from existing legacy measures.
Floor/Ceiling Effects
Rehabilitation Patients: (Coster et al., 2006;n= 516; mean age = 68.3 (14.97) years; data collected at 1, 6, and 12 months after discharge)
- Excellent:No floor effects were observed across 3 assessments
- Adequte:Physical and Movement Activity scales demonstrated low ceiling effects (less than 1% at 12 months)
- Adequate:Personal Care and Instrumental scales had higher ceiling effects (16% at 12 months)
- Poor:Applied Cognitive scale demonstrated the largest ceiling effects (27% at 1 month; 44% at 12 months)
Medically Complex: (McDonough et al., 2016, n=235)
- Fair
- Percent with highest score (ceiling) of the Applied Cognition Scale by impairment group.
Short Form (15 items)
Subjects n | Short Form (15 items) | |||
Mean score (SD) | Floor n(%) | Ceiling n( %) | ||
Outpatient | 235 | 65(27.7) | ||
Neurological | 97 | 47.2(10.1) | 14(14.4) | |
Medically complex | 39 | 51(9.2) | 12(30.8) | |
Orthopedic | 99 | 55.1(8.3) | 39(39.4) |
Full Item Bank (44 items)
Subjects n | Full Item Bank (44 items) | |||
Mean Score (SD) | Floor n(%) | Ceiling n(%) | ||
Outpatient | 235 | 62(26.4) | ||
Neurological | 97 | 47.5(10.2) | 12(12.4) | |
Medically complex | 39 | 52.6(10.1) | 12(30.8) | |
Orthopedic | 99 | 56.9(8.8) | 38(38.4) |
Responsiveness
Rehabilitation Patients: (Coster et al., 2006)
- Standard Response Means between 3 diagnostic groups (neurological, orthopedic, complex medical) ranged between -0.02 and 0.10 (small)
- Mean positive changes ranged from 8.35 to 13.23 points from 1 to 6 months
- Mean positive changes ranged from 4.64 and 7.56 points from 6 to 12 months
Orthopedic outpatient: Individuals with spine, lower-extremtiy and upper extremity impairments (Jette et al., 2007; n = 1815 seen in outpatient clinics)
Domain | n | Difference | Effect Size | SRM |
Total | 1703 | 5.45 (7.97) | 0.59 | 0.68 |
Spine | 666 | 4.83 (7.56) | 0.62 | 0.64 |
EU | 462 | 2.78 (6.87) | 0.34 | 0.40 |
LE | 575 | 8.32 (8.35) | 0.91 | 1.00 |
Stroke
back to PopulationsStandard Error of Measurement (SEM)
Neurologic Cases: (Jette et al., 2015)
- Basic Mobility: SEM=3.16 (n=102)
- Daily Activity: SEM= 3.46 (n=105)
Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)
Neurologic Cases: (Jette et al., 2015)
- Basic Mobility: MDC90% CI=7.36 (n=102)
- Daily Activity: MDC90% CI=8.06 (n=105)
Neurologic Cases: (Jette et al., 2014; Mean Age=69, SD=15.6; n=10,085).
- Basic Mobility: MDC90%CI =4.72
- Daily Activity: MDC90%CI = 5.49
Test/Retest Reliability
Neurologic Cases: (Jette et al., 2015)
- Basic Mobility
- Excellent: ICC= 0.97 (n=102)
- Daily Activity
- Excellent: ICC= 0.96 (n=105)
Interrater/Intrarater Reliability
Neurologic Cases:(Jette et al., 2015)
- Basic Mobility (n=102)
- Excellent interrater reliability: ICC: r=.921, CI=0.830, 0.965
- Daily Activity (n=105)
- Excellent interrater reliability: ICC= r=.907, CI=.801, 0.958
Internal Consistency
Neurologic Cases:(Jette et al, 2014)
- Excellent:
- Bed Mobility: Cronbach’s alpha=.957
- Daily Activity: Cronbach’s alpha=.911
Neurologic Cases: (Robinson-Smith, Harmer, Sheeran, & Bellino Vallo, 2016; n=10)
- Excellent:
- Bed Mobility: Cronbach’s alpha= .947
- Daily Activity: Cronbach’s alpha= .967
Floor/Ceiling Effects
Neurologic Cases: (Sandel et al, 2013; n=222)
Floor Effect:
- Poor
Domains at Baseline | No, n (%) | Yes, n (%) |
Basic Mobility (n = 222) | 214 (96.40) | 8 (3.60) |
Daily Activity (n = 222) | 216 (97.30) | 6 (2.70) |
Applied Cognitive (n = 222) | 222 (100.0) | 0 (0.00) |
At 6 months | ||
Basic Mobility (n = 220) | 217 (98.64) | 3 (1.36) |
Daily Activity (n = 220) | 219 (99.55) | 1 (0.45) |
Applied Cognitive (n = 220) | 219 (99.55) | 1 (0.45) |
Ceiling Effect:
- Poor
Baseline | No, n (%) | Yes, n (%) |
Basic Mobility (n = 222) | 211(95.05) | 11 (4.95) |
Daily Activity (n = 222) | 196 (88.29) | 26 (11.71) |
Applied Cognitive (n = 222) | 198 (89.19) | 24 (10.81) |
At 6 months | ||
Basic Mobility (n = 220) | 214(97.27) | 6 (2.73) |
Daily Activity (n = 220) | 212(96.34) | 8 (3.64) |
Applied Cognitive (n = 220) | 196 (89.09) | 24 (10.91) |
Responsiveness
Neurologic Cases: (Jette et al., 2014)
- Mean absolute differences between the scores for the first visit and last visit were 5.71 (95% CI=5.61, 5.80) for basic mobility and 4.61 (95% CI=4.49, 4.73) for daily activity
- Standardized Response Means
- Basic Mobility: 1.06 (95% CI=1.04, 1.08)
- Daily Activity: 0.95 (95% CI=0.95, 0.97)
Joint Pain and Fractures
back to PopulationsMinimal Detectable Change (MDC)
Hip Fracture: (Latham, 2008; n=108; mean age= 78.9; mean AMPAC physical mobility at baseline= 48.0; mean AMPAC physical mobility at 12 weeks= 59.7)
Distribution-Based Measures of Responsiveness (Baseline to Week 12)
Assessment | ES (Cohen’s d) | SRM | SE of Mean | MDC90 | Percentage Who Exceed MDC90 (Baseline to Week 12) (%) |
AM-PAC Physical Mobility | 1.28 | 1.43 | 1.73 | 4.02 | 90.9 |
AM-PAC Personal Care | 0.93 | 1.22 | 1.60 | 3.72 | 74.0 |
Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)
Hip Fracture: (Latham, 2008)
- MCID for mobility= 4.3
- MCID for daily activity= 3.7
Normative Data
Hip Fracture: (Latham, 2008)
Study Sample Patient Characteristics
Assessment | Mean | Median | Range |
AM-PAC Physical Mobility (0-100) Baseline | 48.0+10.0 | 51.9 | 19.2-62.7 |
AM-PAC Physical Mobility (0-100) Week 12 | 59.7+8.2 | 60.2 | 29.0-82.5 |
AM-PAC Personal Care (0-100) Baseline | 49.2+ 8.0 | 48.5 | 22.0-68.0 |
AM-PAC Personal Care (0-100) Week 12 | 57.0+8.8 | 58.2 | 35.0-68.1 |
Internal Consistency
Hip Fracture: (Latham, 2008)
- Adequate: Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.93
Floor/Ceiling Effects
Hip Fracture: (Latham, 2008)
- No subjects reached the floor or the ceiling at either time point for the AM-PAC Personal Care scale or AM-PAC Physical Mobility scale.
Bibliography
Andres, P. L., Haley, S. M., et al. (2003). "Is patient-reported function reliable for monitoring postacute outcomes?" Am J
Borges, P. R. T., Sampaio, R. F., Kirkwood, R. N., de Souza, M. A. P., Mancini, M. C., & Furtado, S. R. C. (2019). Reduced version of the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) for inpatients,“6-clicks”: Brazilian-Portuguese cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties. Brazilian journal of physical therapy.
Coster, W. J., Haley, S. M., et al. (2006). "Measuring patient-reported outcomes after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation settings." J Rehabil Med 38(4): 237-242.Find it on PubMed
Haley, S. M., Coster, W. J., et al. (2004). "Activity outcome measurement for postacute care." Med Care 42(1 Suppl): I49-61.Find it on PubMed
Haley, S. M., Ni, P., et al. (2009). "Replenishing a computerized adaptive test of patient-reported daily activity functioning." Qual Life Res 18(4): 461-471.Find it on PubMed
Haley, S. M., Siebens, H., et al. (2006). "Computerized adaptive testing for follow-up after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation: I. Activity outcomes." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87(8): 1033-1042.Find it on PubMed
Hoyer, E. H., Young, D. L., Klein, L. M., Kreif, J., Shumock, K., Hiser, S., ... & Needham, D. M. (2017). Toward a common language for measuring patient mobility in the hospital: reliability and construct validity of interprofessional mobility measures. Physical therapy, 98(2), 133-142.
Jette, A. M., Haley, S. M., et al. (2007). "Prospective evaluation of the AM-PAC-CAT in outpatient rehabilitation settings." Phys Ther 87(4): 385-398.Find it on PubMed
Jette, D. U., Stilphen, M., Ranganathan, V. K., Passek, S. D., Frost, F. S., & Jette, A. M. (2014). AM-PAC “6-Clicks” functional assessment scores predict acute care hospital discharge destination. Physical therapy, 94(9), 1252-1261.
Jette, D. U., Stilphen, M., Ranganathan, V. K., Passek, S., Frost, F. S., & Jette, A. M. (2015). Interrater reliability of AM-PAC “6-Clicks” basic mobility and daily activity short forms. Physical therapy, 95(5), 758-766.
Jette, D. U., Stilphen, M., Ranganathan, V. K., Passek, S. D., Frost, F. S., & Jette, A. M. (2014). Validity of the AM-PAC “6-Clicks” inpatient daily activity and basic mobility short forms. Physical therapy, 94(3), 379-391.
Latham, N. K., Mehta, V., et al. (2008). "Performance-based or self-report measures of physical function: which should be used in clinical trials of hip fracture patients?" Arch Phys Med Rehabil 89(11): 2146-2155.Find it on PubMed
McDonough, C. M., Ni, P., Coster, W. J., Haley, S. M., & Jette, A. M. (2016). Development of an IRT-based short form to assess applied cognitive function in outpatient rehabilitation. American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation/Association of Academic Physiatrists, 95(1), 62.
Robinson-Smith, G., Harmer, C., Sheeran, R., & Bellino Vallo, E. (2016). Couple’s coping after stroke: A pilot intervention study. Rehabilitation Nursing, 41(4), 218-229.
Sandel, M. E., Jette, A. M., Appelman, J., Terdiman, J., TeSelle, M., Delmonico, R. L., ... & Chan, L. (2013). Designing and implementing a system for tracking functional status after stroke: A feasibility study. PM&R, 5(6), 481-490.
More Instruments Like This
We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.
updated Jun 27, 2024
Informant Questionnaire on...
read more
updated Jun 11, 2024
Behavioral Assessment Scre...
read more
updated Jan 14, 2024
Dynamic Lowenstein Occupat...
read more