Comparison of content and psychometric properties for assessment tools used for brain tumor patients: a scoping review

Abstract

Aims To determine the most frequently utilized functional status assessment instruments for patients with brain tumors, compare their contents, using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), and their psychometric properties. Methods A scoping review was conducted to explore possible assessment instruments and summarize the evidence. A systematic literature search was performed for identification of the frequently used functional assessment tool in clinical trials in PubMed, ScienceDirect, and ProQuest databases. The content of most used instruments was linked to the ICF categories. The psychometric qualities of these assessment tools were systematically searched and analyzed. Results Nine most used assessment tools in clinical trials were identified. The most frequently used assessment instrument is the Karnofsky Performance Scale, which is developed for a general assessment of oncological patients. Out of four self-assessment tools, two were disease-specific (EORTC QLQ-BN20 and FACT-Br), EORTC QLQ-C30 has been shown good psychometric properties in patients with brain tumors as well as in patients with various oncological diseases, similar to the SF-36, it is used in patients with brain tumors as well as in patients with various diseases. The Functional Independence Measure and the Barthel Index were two objective assessment tools that described functioning, but two were neuropsychological tests (MMSE and Trial Making Test). Two hundred eighty-three meaningful concepts were identified and linked to 102 most relevant second-level categories covering all components of the ICF. Forty-nine studies reporting psychometric properties of those nine assessment tools were identified, indicating good reliability and validity for all the instruments. Conclusion Nine most frequently utilized functional status assessment instruments for patients with brain tumors represent all components of the ICF and have good psychometric properties. However, the choice of the tool depends on the clinical question posed and the aim of its use.

Comparison of the Functional State and Motor Skills of Patients after Cerebral Hemisphere, Ventricular System, and Cerebellopontine Angle Tumor Surgery

“…Each activity is scored 5, 10, or 15 up to a total of 100 points: 0–20 means a severe condition, 20–80 indicates that the patient requires help of various degrees, and >80 denotes an independent patient. The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of this scale have previously been reported, with its Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (PCC) ≥ 0.80 and Cronbach’s α coefficient or intraclass correlation (ICC) ≥ 0.70 denoting high test–retest and inter-rater reliability, respectively [ 25 ]. The BI scale was found to be structurally valid (r ≥ 0.50), and the scale was shown to detect clinically significant changes over time (i.e., responsive) [ 25 ].…”

“…Inter-observer reliability for the KPS was 0.97 (Cronbach’s α coefficient). The KPS scale was also valid (r ≥ 0.70) [ 25 , 29 ].…”

Establishing score equivalence of the GDS-30 scale and International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health range, using Rasch analysis

“…The individual components of the scales are combined with ICF activity and participation codes [38]. The ICF classification provides the ability to analyse a broad spectrum of patient functioning, both in the cognitive, motor, social, and environmental domains [39]. It is possible to link most of the test items identified by commonly used functional assessment tools to specific categories of the ICF classification [40,41].…”

Rehabilitation Outcomes for Patients with Motor Deficits after Initial and Repeat Brain Tumor Surgery

“…ADLs were assessed with the BI, which assesses self-reliance in eating, self-transferring (e.g., from bed to wheelchair), maintaining personal hygiene, using the toilet, washing, moving on flat surfaces and stairs, dressing, and controlling urine and bowel motions. Each activity is scored 5, 10, or 15 up to a total of 100 points: 0–20 means a severe condition, 20–80 indicates that the patient requires a varying degree of help, and >80 denotes an independent patient [ 30 ].…”