• Assesses burden of care and functional impairment
  • This version of the FIM is completed by the patient
  • Similar to the FIM, the FIM-SR subscales includes:
    1) Self-care
    2) Sphincter control
    3) Mobility
    4) Locomotion
    5) Communication
    6) Social cognition.

Clinical Considerations

  • The instrument reports the patient perspective on their level of independence
  • In general, the instrument is well known as the internationally accepted, global tool to measure functional independence.
  • The FIM-SR has less clinician and client burden than the original FIM which requires observation of performance.
  • Most items on the FIM-SR generalize to all populations, however modified versions of the FIM exist to accommodate the needs of individuals with SCI. The motor scale adequately discriminated subjects with different injury levels.

ICF Domain

Activity ▶ Self-Care

Administration

  • Self-report
  • Was developed for administration by telephone interview
  • Approximately 20 minutes to complete

Number of Items

18 items

Equipment

None

Scoring

  • The 18 items are rated on a 1 – 7 scale where 1 = total assistance is needed and 7 = complete independence.
  • The scoring considers the use of adaptive equipment and/or the extent of personal assistance or supervision required to complete the task. If assistive equipment (ex. raised toilet seat) is used, the individual cannot achieve a score of 7 on the item.
  • The scores can be reported as FIM Motor scores, FIM Cognitive scores or FIM Total summed scores.
  • Total FIM scores range from 18 (totally dependent) to 126 (totally independent); motor scores range from 13 (total dependence) to 91 (total independence); and cognitive scores range from 5 (total dependence) to 35 (total independence).

Languages

English

Training Required

Training is required for health care professionals scoring the FIM–SR and can be accessed here.

Availability

The FIM-SR can be purchased here

Measurement Property Summary

Number of studies reporting psychometric properties: 1

Interpretability

  • Total FIM-SR scores range from 18 (total dependence) to 126 (total independence).
  • The higher the FIM score, the fewer care hours required upon discharge.
  • No normative data has been established for the SCI population.
  • Published data for the SCI population is available for comparison (see Interpretability section of the Study Details sheet)
  • MCID not established in SCI population
  • SEM and MDC:

SEM and MDC for total FIM-SR and subscales (calculated from data in Masedo et al. 2005):

Variable SEM MDC
Self-care 4.03 11.2
Sphincter 1.45 4.02
Mobility 2.51 6.96
Locomotion 1.59 4.41
Communication 0.49 1.35
Social cognition 0.74 2.04
Motor 7.67 21.2
Cognitive 0.93 2.56
Total 8.05 22.30

(Masedo et al. 2005; n=84; 67 males; mean age: 42 years; 54% cervical, 38% thoracic, 7% lumbar/sacral; mean (SD) time since SCI: 8.3 (8.9) years)

Reliability – Moderate to High

  • Moderate to High test-retest reliability:
    • Total score: r = 0.89
    • Items scores: r = 0.54-0.91
  • High internal consistency:
    • Pre-treatment: Total score α = 0.95, Item score α = 0.14-0.98
    • Post-treatment: Total score α = 0.94, Item score α = 0.20-0.98

(Masedo et al. 2005; n=84; 67 males; mean age: 42 years; 54% cervical, 38% thoracic, 7% lumbo/sacral; mean (SD) time since SCI: 8.3 (8.9) years); amitriptyline treatment)

Validity – Low to Moderate

Low to Moderate correlation with CHART:

  • CHART total: r = 0.26
  • CHART Physical subscale: r = 0.49
  • CHART Mobility subscale: r = 0.30

(Masedo et al. 2005; n=84; 67 males; mean age: 42 years; 54% cervical, 38% thoracic, 7% lumbar/sacral; mean (SD) time since SCI: 8.3 (8.9) years)

Responsiveness

Floor/Ceiling Effect

Ceiling effects were detected in both the FIM-SR cognitive subscale (88% subjects reported max score) and the FIM-SR communication and social cognition subscale (76% subjects reported max score).

(Masedo et al. 2005; n=84; 67 males; mean age: 42 years; 54% cervical, 38% thoracic, 7% lumbar/sacral; mean (SD) time since SCI: 8.3 (8.9) years)

Reviewers

Dr. Ben Mortenson, Dr. Carlos L. Cano-Herrera

Date Last Updated

December 31, 2024

Graves D. The construct validity and explanatory power of the AISA Motor Score and the FIM: implications for theoretical models of spinal cord injury Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 2005;10:65-74.
http://thomasland.metapress.com/content/xa251uv2e6j6ngln/

Hall KM, Cohen ME, Wright J, Call M, Werner P. Characteristics of the Functional Independence Measure in traumatic spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999;80:1471-1476.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10569443

Hamilton BB, Deutsch A, Russell C, Fiedler RC, Granger CV. Relation of disability costs to function: spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999;80:385-391.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10206599

Heinemann AW, Kirk P, Hastie BA Semik,P, Hamilton BB, Linacre JM, Wright BD, Granger C. Relationships between disability measures and nursing effort during medical rehabilitation for patients with traumatic brain and spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997;78:143-149.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9041894

Masedo AI, Hanley M, Jensen MP, Ehde D, Cardenas DD. Reliability and validity of a self-report FIM (FIM-SR) in persons with amputation or spinal cord injury and chronic pain. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:167-176.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15725790