Fdrg bcn-013 - literature review criteria update (trish saleeby)

1. Patricia Saleeby
FDRG Committee Member
saleebyp@siu.edu
WHO FIC Network Annual Meeting
Barcelona, Spain
14 October 2014

2. Developing Criteria to Evaluate ICF Literature
Abstract This poster describes the ongoing efforts of the Functioning and Disability Reference Group (FDRG) in
establishing criteria to evaluate the quality of the increasing broad range of published ICF literature.
Introduction
Title
There has been a growing interest in
the ICF as reflected in the increased
number of ICF related literature over
the past decade. Although a good
number of articles represent mapping
ICF concepts or codes, the literature is
becoming broader in scope.
This literature includes primarily
publications regarding the ICF
framework and development, utility
and application of the ICF, ICF codes
and coding, education and training on
the ICF, research and empirical studies
involving the ICF, and implementation
of the ICF in policy as well as clinical
and professional practice.
11-17 October 2014
Barcelona, Spain
C513
WHO - FAMILY OF INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS NETWORK ANNUAL MEETING 2014
Patricia Saleeby1, Catherine Sykes2, Andrea Martinuzzi3, John Hough4,
Haejung Lee5, Mathilde Leonardi6, Alain Leplege7, Thomas Maribo8, Huib Ten Napel9,
Jaana Paltamaa10, Stefanus Snyman11, Gordon Tomes12
1SIU Carbondale, USA 2World Confederation for Physical Therapy, UK 3Research Branch, Italian CC, Italy
4North American CC, USA 5Korean CC, Korea 6Italian WHO CC Research Branch Neurological Institute C. Besta
7Universite Paris Diderot, France 8Aarhus University, Denmark 9Dutch CC, Netherlands
10JAMK University of Finland, Finland 11Stellenbosch University, South Africa 12Australian CC, Australia
Title
FDRG Activities
Members of the FDRG task group
decided the following criteria were
necessary in considering the quality
and merit of the publication and its
contribution to the overall ICF
literature:
1. All components of the ICF
framework are considered.
2. All components of the framework
and their interactions are considered.
Reasons for excluding components are
explained.
3. Demonstration of the methods by
which the ICF interactions are
discussed.
4. Demonstrated awareness of the
literature pre-dating the study and
relevant reference to ICF literature is
provided.
5. Explicit reference to ICF definitions
and categories are included.
6. Consistent use of ICF language is
demonstrated.
7. Where ICF is linked/mapped to
another tool description of the
methodology is given.
8. Where linkage between ICF
qualifiers and other measures
description of the methodology is
given.
9. Knowledge translation between
different settings is demonstrated.
10. Description of the use of ICF
qualifiers e.g. five point scale, three
point scale, present/absent, and
description of the reason for selection
of qualifier use is provided.
11. The person’s perspective is
recognized in the reporting.
12. Interaction with ICF derived
instruments is clarified.
Twenty published papers have been
selected to pilot-test the preliminary
criteria. Papers have been chosen
randomly from several combined ICF
literature sources including the WHO
Dutch Collaborating Centre Literature
Database on ICF.
Selected articles are all published in
English as a common language to
facilitate the evaluation exercise
among international members of the
FDRG task group.
Articles originate from different
journals and authors, represent
various fields and disciplines, and
characterize varying types of literature
as described in the introduction.
Two FDRG task group members have
been assigned to review and rate each
article according to the 12 preliminary
criteria. Rating sheets are being
compared and tabulated to determine
if each criteria is feasible for evaluating
a diverse literature on ICF. Reviewer
comments are also being used to guide
adjustments to the initial criteria.
Acknowledgements or Notes
Updated Criteria
In 2013 at the Beijing meeting the
Functioning and Disability Reference
Group (FDRG) decided to establish
criteria to assist in evaluating the
broad range of ICF literature.
At the 2014 FDRG meeting in London,
the task group began with the previous
work led by John Hough, which
determined six main criteria to
evaluate literature related to ICF
mapping.*
These criteria were reviewed and
discussed by the FDRG task group for
evaluating ICF literature beyond those
publications related to mapping and
coding. A total of 12 updated criteria
were developed by the task group to
better address the broader range of
ICF related literature.
Current Tasks
For further information, contact:
Patricia Saleeby [saleebyp@siu.edu], or
FDRG Co-Chairs Catherine Sykes
[csykes@wcpt.org] and Andrew Martinuzzi
[andrea.martinuzzi@lanostrafamiglia.it],
or FDRG Secretariat Stefanus Snyman
[ssnyman@sun.ac.za]
*Hough, J. (2013, October) Need and
Rationale for an ICF Mapping Database.
Poster presented at the annual meeting of
the WHOFIC Network, Beijing, China.
Adherence to
the ICF Linking
Rules
Quantitative
Methods
Usability in Applied
Settings
Applicability in Less Resourced
Countries
Conceptual Merit of the ICF Mapping
Suitable Application of ICF Concepts
Future Steps
Results from the evaluation exercise
will be reviewed and discussed at the
annual meeting. Finalized criteria will
be determined by the task group and
recommended to the FDRG Committee.
A co-authored paper will be submitted
for publication describing both the
evaluation process and findings, which
will serve as recommendations for
consideration to journal reviewers and
future authors of ICF related articles.

3. Project Overview
• The ICF literature has increased over the
years and has become broader in scope.
• In 2013 at the Beijing meeting, FDRG
decided to establish criteria to assist in
evaluating the ICF literature.
• In 2014 at the London mid-year FDRG
meeting, the sub-group started with the
work led by John Hough and their six
criteria to evaluate literature related to
ICF mapping.
(1) Adherence to the ICF linking rules
(2) Quantitative methods
(3) Usability in applied settings
(4) Applicability in less resourced countries
(5) Conceptual merit of the ICF mapping
(6) Suitable application of ICF concepts

4. 12 Preliminary Criteria
1. All components of the ICF framework are considered.
Reasons for excluding components are explained.
2. The interactions in ICF are considered.
3. ICF interactions are discussed.
4. Awareness and reference to ICF literature pre-dating
the study are demonstrated.
5. Explicit reference to ICF definitions and categories
are included.
6. Use of language consistent with ICF is used.
7. The person's perspective (subjective data) is
recognized in the reporting.
8. Knowledge translation (applications) between
different settings is demonstrated.
9. Where ICF is linked/mapped to an assessment tool or
framework, description of the methodology is given
10. Where there is linkage between ICF qualifiers and
other measures, description of the methodology is
given.
11. Reason for selection of ICF qualifiers and description
of their use is provided.
12. Where there is an instrument derived from ICF,
methodology for deriving instrument is explained.

5. Criteria Review Pilot Test
• English was selected as a common
language for publications to facilitate the
evaluation among our international
FDRG members.
• Twenty (20) papers were selected
randomly from a compiled database
created over the past 5 years from
multiple electronic database searches
and literature from Dutch CC Literature
Database on ICF.
• Papers represent a range of literature in
terms of journals, disciplines, authors,
countries, and dates of publications from
2002-2013.

6. Criteria Review Pilot Test
• Each paper will be evaluated by two (2)
individuals using the established criteria.
• An evaluation sheet has been developed in
a survey format in Survey Monkey.
• Each criteria is listed followed by a 5-point
Likert scale - Strongly Disagree, Disagree,
Neither Disagree or Agree, Agree and
Strongly Agree with compulsory response.
• An option for N/A is assigned to “where
there” questions as needed.
• There is also a section for Comments to
help understand specific responses or
inform the overall project.
• The survey link will be emailed to evaluators
to complete evaluation of assigned articles.
• Timeline for completion is October 24th to
allow for findings to be summarized and
reported back to FDRG.

7. Final Steps
We need to finalize FDRG members who
will serve as evaluators for the pilot-test.
• 20 articles x 2 evaluations = 40 evaluations
• Example - If 10 FDRG members volunteer than
each will need to complete 4 evaluations.
• At this meeting, we will distribute articles
to each evaluator (electronically and/or
hard copy) and share the link to the
evaluation sheet/survey.
• We will review findings of pilot test and
disseminate information back to FDRG
by November 1st.

8. Publication
• Draft and finalize a peer-reviewed journal
article for publication.
• Timeline Dec 2014
• Determine Journal for publication.
• 1. “ICF friendly” journal
• 2. Journal with international reach
• 3. Multi-disciplinary journal
• Example: Disability and Rehabilitation
• Discussion point –
• How can these criteria be used as
guidance to either helping authors in
developing ICF related research in
implementation or understanding the
value of published papers?