Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Standardized administration and scoring guidelines for the Spinal Cord Independence Measure Version 3.0 (SCIM-III)

Spinal Cord volume 61, pages 296–306 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Study design

Qualitative studies.

Objective

To develop clear and specific administration and scoring procedures for the Spinal Cord Independence Measure Version 3.0 as a performance-based and interview assessment.

Setting

Research lab.

Methods

Modified Delphi Technique survey methods were used in this study. Previously developed SCIM-III administration and scoring procedures for performance-based and interview versions were presented to clinicians experienced in SCI and SCIM-III using the Qualtrix (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) online survey platform. Summary and descriptive statistics were used to assess the percent agreement survey responses.

Results

Three survey rounds were necessary to achieve 80% agreement or above for the performance-based version. Two survey rounds were necessary to achieve 80% agreement or above on the interview version.

Conclusions

This study describes the development of standardized administration and scoring procedures for the self-care and mobility sub-scales of the SCIM-III as a performance-based and interview version.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files]. As stated in our conclusions, the completed guidelines resulting from this study are available on the Center for Outcomes and Measurement website, https://www.jefferson.edu/academics/colleges-schools-institutes/rehabilitation-sciences/departments/outcomes-measurement/measures-assessments/spinal-corde-independence-measure-v3.html.

References

  1. Catz A, Itzkovich M, Steinberg F, Philo O, Ring H, Ronen J, et al. The Catz-Itzkovich SCIM: a revised version of the spinal cord independence measure. Disabil Rehabil. 2001;23:263–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. De Almeida C, Coelho JN, Riberto M. Applicability, validation and reproducibility of the spinal cord independence measure version III (SCIM III) in patients with non-traumatic spinal cord lesions. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38:2229–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Catz A, Itzkovich M, Agranov E, Ring H, Tamir A. SCIM-spinal cord independence measure: a new disability scale for patients with spinal cord lesions. Spinal Cord. 1997;35:850–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ackerman P, Morrison SA, McDowell S, Vazquez L. Using the spinal cord independence measure III to measure functional recovery in a post-acute spinal cord injury program. Spinal Cord. 2010;48:380–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Catz A, Itzkovich M, Tesio L, Biering-Sorenson F, Weeks C, Laramee MT, et al. A multi-center international study on the spinal cord independence measure, version III: Rasch psychometric validation. Spinal Cord. 2007;45:275–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Itzkovich M, Gelernter I, Biering-Sorenson F, Weeks C, Laramee MT, Craven BC, et al. The spinal cord independence measure (SCIM) version III: reliability and validity in a multi-center international study. DisabilRehabil. 2007;29:1926–33.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bluvshtein V, Front L, Itzkovich M, Aidinoff E, Gelernter I, Hart J, et al. SCIM III is reliable and valid in a separate analysis for traumatic spinal cord lesions. Spinal Cord. 2011;49:292–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Anderson KD, Acuff ME, Arp BG, Backus D, Chun S, Fisher K, et al. United States (US) multi-center study to assess the validity and reliability of the spinal cord independence measure (SCIM III). Spinal Cord. 2011;49:88–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Scivolette G, Tamburella F, Laurenza L, Molinari M. The spinal cord independence measure: how much change is clinically significant for spinal cord injury subjects. DisabilRehabil. 2013;35:1808–13.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Aidinoff E, Front L, Itzkovich M, Bluvshtein V, Gelernter I, Hart J, et al. Expected spinal cord independence measure, third version, scores for various neurological levels after complete spinal cord lesions. Spinal Cord. 2011;49:893–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fekete C, Eriks-Hoogland I, Baumberger M, Catz A, Itzkovich M, Luthi H, et al. Development and validation of a self-report version of the spinal independence measure (SCIM III). Spinal Cord. 2013;51:40–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Reed R, Mehra M, Kirshblum S, Maier D, Lammertse D, Blight A, et al. Spinal cord ability ruler: an interval scale to measure volitional performance after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2017;55:730–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Anderson K, Aito S, Atkins M, Biering-Sorenson F, Charlifue S, Curt A, et al. Functional recovery measures for spinal cord injury: an evidence based review for clinical practice and research. J Spinal Cord Med. 2008;31:133–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Macdermid JC, Law M, Michlovitz SL. Outcome measurement in evidence based rehabilitation. In: Law M, Macdermid J, editors. Evidence based rehabilitation: a guide to practice (3rd edition). Slack Incorporated; 2014. p. 65–104.

  15. Saberi H, Vosoughi F, Derakhshanrad N, Yekaninejad M, Khan ZH, Kohan AH, et al. Development of Persian version of the spinal cord independence measure III assessed by interview: a psychometric study. Spinal Cord. 2018;56:980–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Itzkovich M, Shefler H, Front L, Gur-Pollack R, Elkayam K, Bluvshtein V, et al. SCIM III (Spinal Cord Independence Measure version III): reliability of assessment by interview and comparison with assessment by observation. Spinal Cord. 2017;56:46–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Itzkovich M, Tamir A, Philo O, Steinberg F, Ronen J, Spasser R, et al. Reliability of the Catz-Itzkovich spinal cord independence measure assessment by interview and comparison with observation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;82:267–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hasson F, Keeney S, Mckenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32:1008–15.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Meshkat B, Cowman S, Gethin G, Ryan K, Wiley M, Brick A, et al. Using an e-Delphi technique in achieving consensus across disciplines for developing best practice in a day surgery in Ireland. J Hosp Adm. 2014;3:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Niederberger M, Spranger J. Delphi technique in health sciences: a map. Front Public Health. 2020; https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00457.

  21. Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, McKee CM, Sanderson CF, Askham J, et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2:1–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Green B, Jones M, Hughes D, Willimas A. Applying the Delphi technique in a study of GP’s information requirements. Health Soc Care Community. 1999;7:198–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Emmel, N. Purposeful sampling. In: Sampling and choosing cases in qualitative research: a realist approach. SAGE Publications Ltd; 2013. p. 33–44.

  24. Morgan, D. Snowball sampling. In: Given L, editor. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.; 2008. p. 816–7.

  25. Mowbray CT, Holter MC, Teague GB, Bybee D. Fidelity criteria: development, measurement, and validation. Am J Eval. 2003;24:315–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Walton H, Spector A, Williamson M, Tombar I, Michie S. Developing quality fidelity and engagement measures for complex health interventions. Br J Health Psychol. 2020;25:39–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Spell LA, Richardson JD, Basilakos A, Stark BC, Teklehaimanot A, Hillis AE, et al. Developing, implementing, and improving assessment and treatment fidelity in clinical aphasia research. Am J Speech-Lang Pathol. 2020;29:286–98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Reed DK, Sturges KM. An examination of assessment fidelity in the administration and interpretation of reading tests. Remedial Spec Educ. 2012;34:259–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Novick DG, Ward K. Why don’t people read the manual. Departmental Papers. 2006;15.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Isa A. McClure, MAPT, Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation and Rebecca Martin, OTD, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine for their contributions in the development of the standardized administration and scoring procedures. We further acknowledge our study respondents who participated in the surveys unnamed. Their expertise greatly informed the development of the SCIM-III standardized administration and scoring procedures.

Funding

This study was funded by departmental funds from the Department of Occupational Therapist in the Jefferson College of Rehabilitation Sciences in Thomas Jefferson University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Outcomes and Measurement, Jefferson College of Rehabilitation Sciences, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Rachel Y. Kim, Christina Calhoun Thielen & M. J. Mulcahey

  2. Main Line Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Giulia Heydeman

Authors
  1. Rachel Y. Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christina Calhoun Thielen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giulia Heydeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. J. Mulcahey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RYK was responsible for leading data collection and analysis of Delphi for SCIM performance-based assessment, developing Delphi surveys for interview assessment, and leading the writing of the manuscript. CCT contributed by assisting in developing Delphi surveys for performance-based and interview assessment, collecting and analyzing data, and writing the manuscript. GH led the data collection and analysis of Delphi for SCIM interview assessment and assisted with writing the interview assessment portions of the manuscript. MJM was responsible for the conceptual design of the study, leading the development of the Delphi surveys, assisting in data analysis, and an equal in writing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel Y. Kim.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB), “Spinal Cord Independence Measure, Version III (SCIM-III) Procedure Development: A Modified Delphi Survey” (Departmental) Control #20E.150. We certify that all applicable institutional and governmental regulations concerning the ethical use of human volunteers/animals were followed during the course of this research.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, R.Y., Thielen, C.C., Heydeman, G. et al. Standardized administration and scoring guidelines for the Spinal Cord Independence Measure Version 3.0 (SCIM-III). Spinal Cord 61, 296–306 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-023-00891-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-023-00891-5

Search

Advanced search

Quick links