Article Text

other Versions

The Rehabilitation Complexity Scale version 2: A clinimetric evaluation in patients with severe complex neurodisability
  1. Lynne Turner-Stokes (lynne.turner-stokes{at}
  1. King's College London, School of Medicine, United Kingdom
    1. Heather Williams (heather.williams{at}
    1. Regional Rehabilitation Unit, North West London Hospitals Trust, United Kingdom
      1. Richard J Siegert (richard.siegert{at}
      1. King's College London, School of Medicine, United Kingdom


        Objective: To evaluate clinimetric properties of the Rehabilitation Complexity Scale (RCS) in a neurorehabilitation inpatient sample.

        Design: An observational cohort analysis in a tertiary specialist setting.

        Subjects: 179 consecutive patients (mean age 44.5(sd15) years, Males:Females 110:69) with complex neurological disabilities, mainly following acquired brain injury.

        Methods: Repeat RCS ratings of the level of care, nursing, therapy and medical interventions were examined for dimensionality, repeatability, consistency, and responsiveness; and compared with the Northwick Park Nursing and Therapy Dependency Scales (NPDS and NPTDA), the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and Barthel Index, recorded at the start and end of treatment.

        Results: Test-retest reliability confirmed the RCS to be repeatable (Kappa 0.93-0.96) and moderately responsive to changes in levels of intervention over the course of the programme, suggesting the need for serial evaluation. Coefficient-alpha was 0.76 and item-total correlations all >0.50, with moderate-high loadings on the first principal component. Factor analysis showed two clear factors (‘Nursing/medical care’, and ‘Therapies’). The RCS demonstrated good convergent and discriminant validity with the NPDS and NPTDA, but some ceiling effect. FIM motor and Barthel scores correlated well with basic care and nursing scores (Spearman rho -0.65 to -0.79), but less well with therapy (rho -0.26) and medical (rho -0.28 to -0.33) scores.

        Conclusion: In this cohort, the RCS provided a reliable, valid and moderately responsive profile of rehabilitation interventions, separating into two main subscales. It usefully identified medical and therapy inputs not captured by the FIM and BI, which are commonly used to define case complexity in rehabilitation.

        Statistics from

        Request permissions

        If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

        Linked Articles