Rivermead Mobility Index Evaluation Summary
|What does the tool measure?||The RMI measures mobility disability in clients with stroke|
|What types of clients can the tool be used for?||Clients with stroke, head injury or multiple sclerosis.|
|Is this a screening or assessment tool?||Assessment|
|Time to administer||An average of 3 to 5 minutes.|
|Versions||Modified Rivermead Mobility Index.|
|Other Languages||Italian and Dutch.|
|Reliability||– 2 studies examined the internal consistency using Chronbach’s alpha and reliability coefficient rho.
studies have examined the test-retest reliability of the RMI and reported adequate to
excellent Kappa Statistics. One study, using
Rasch Analysis reported that item difficulty on the RMI is the same across repeated
– 2 studies examined the inter-rater reliability of the RMI and
reported poor to excellent inter-rater reliability using Bland and Altman Technique,
Content: 1 study examined the content validity of the RMI by estimating its
coefficient of reproducibility and scalability and confirmed the RMI fulfill the
Guttmann scaling criteria.
Concurrent Validity: 1 study examined the concurrent validity of the RMI and
reported excellent correlations between the RMI and the Modified Rivermead mobility
and STREAM using correlation between these
3 mobility measures was found.
Predictive Validity: 3 studies examined the
predictive validity of the RMI and reported that the RMI measured at admission or up
to 90 days after stroke was able to predict Barthel Index scores at discharge from a
rehabilitation program. Also, at admission, RMI scores > than 4 was an excellent
predictor of an early discharge home.
Convergent validity: 4 studies examined convergent validity of the RMI and
reported excellent correlations between the RMI and the Barthel Index, the Berg Balance Scale, the 6-Minute Walk Test, the motor scales of the FIM, the Trunk Control Test
and gait speed. Adequate correlations were reported between the RMI and the leg
section of the Motricity Index. Poor correlations were reported between the RMI and
number of falls and cognitive scales of the FIM. Correlations were calculated using
convergent validity of
the Dutch version of the RMI and reported excellent correlations between the Dutch RMI
and the Dutch version on the Barthel Index using Spearman’s rho.
|Floor/Ceiling Effects||2 studies examined the ceiling effects of the RMI and reported that at
earlier phases of the stroke, floor effects were poor . When the RMI is measured 180
days after stroke ceiling effects were adequate .
|Does the tool detect change in patients?||3 studies have examined the responsiveness of the RMI and reported that the RMI
has a large effect size and is able to detect
minimal clinically important differences in clients with stroke.
|Acceptability||The RMI should not be administered to clients with severe cognitive impairments
due to the 14 self-reported items.
|Feasibility||The administration of the RMI is quick and simple.|
|How to obtain the tool?||The RMI can be obtained from the studies by Antonucci et al. (2002), Forlander
& Bohannon (1998) or Franchignoni et al. (2003).