EPIDEMIOLOGY AND HEALTH DATA INSIGHTS
Original Article
Oct 29, 2026 5 5

Agreement of a National Routing Scale with Validated Measures of Change in Pediatric Rehabilitation

Syed Gufran Sadiq Zaidi 1 * ,
Ihteshamul Hayat 2,
Saule Karibzhanova 1,
Zeeshan Zeeshan 1
1 School of Medicine, Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan2 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan* Corresponding Author
Epidemiology and Health Data Insights, 2(5), 2026, ehdi061, https://doi.org/10.63946/ehdi/19690
Publication date: Oct 29, 2026
Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Introduction. Routine indicators of rehabilitation effectiveness are rarely checked against validated measures in children. Kazakhstan mandates the Rehabilitation Routing Scale, whose properties in children are unknown. We tested whether its change agrees with change on the Gross Motor Function Measure and the Barthel Index.
Methods. We analyzed 318 consecutive admissions to a national pediatric rehabilitation center (August to September 2025) from anonymized discharge records. Change scores were available for 306 children (Routing Scale), 215 (Gross Motor Function Measure) and 150 (Barthel Index). We estimated the magnitude of change, Spearman correlations of change scores (hypothesis: at least 0.30) with bootstrap 95% confidence intervals, tertile agreement and classification agreement.
Results. Most children improved on every scale (88%, 92% and 96%); the Routing Scale never recorded a decline. Admission scores agreed moderately (correlation 0.69 with the Gross Motor Function Measure and 0.52 with the Barthel Index). Change scores did not: 0.04 (95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.18; 208 children) and -0.05 (-0.21 to 0.12; 143 children), while change on the two validated scales correlated weakly, at 0.29 (0.08 to 0.48; 90 children). Among 86 children with all three scales, 40 improved on all three and 38 improved on both validated scales but not by a ratio of at least 1.10 on the Routing Scale. Sensitivity analyses gave similar results, except that the Barthel Index correlation changed sign between age groups.
Conclusion. The national scale tracked baseline severity, but its change was not interchangeable with change on validated measures. Effectiveness reports should use more than one instrument. Limitations include a single center, a short stay, no test-retest data and no external anchor.

KEYWORDS

Rehabilitation Child Outcome Assessment Health Care Reproducibility of Results Routinely Collected Health Data

CITATION (Vancouver)

Zaidi SGS, Hayat I, Karibzhanova S, Zeeshan Z. Agreement of a National Routing Scale with Validated Measures of Change in Pediatric Rehabilitation. Epidemiology and Health Data Insights. 2026;2(5):ehdi061. https://doi.org/10.63946/ehdi/19690
APA
Zaidi, S. G. S., Hayat, I., Karibzhanova, S., & Zeeshan, Z. (2026). Agreement of a National Routing Scale with Validated Measures of Change in Pediatric Rehabilitation. Epidemiology and Health Data Insights, 2(5), ehdi061. https://doi.org/10.63946/ehdi/19690
Harvard
Zaidi, S. G. S., Hayat, I., Karibzhanova, S., and Zeeshan, Z. (2026). Agreement of a National Routing Scale with Validated Measures of Change in Pediatric Rehabilitation. Epidemiology and Health Data Insights, 2(5), ehdi061. https://doi.org/10.63946/ehdi/19690
AMA
Zaidi SGS, Hayat I, Karibzhanova S, Zeeshan Z. Agreement of a National Routing Scale with Validated Measures of Change in Pediatric Rehabilitation. Epidemiology and Health Data Insights. 2026;2(5), ehdi061. https://doi.org/10.63946/ehdi/19690
Chicago
Zaidi, Syed Gufran Sadiq, Ihteshamul Hayat, Saule Karibzhanova, and Zeeshan Zeeshan. "Agreement of a National Routing Scale with Validated Measures of Change in Pediatric Rehabilitation". Epidemiology and Health Data Insights 2026 2 no. 5 (2026): ehdi061. https://doi.org/10.63946/ehdi/19690
MLA
Zaidi, Syed Gufran Sadiq et al. "Agreement of a National Routing Scale with Validated Measures of Change in Pediatric Rehabilitation". Epidemiology and Health Data Insights, vol. 2, no. 5, 2026, ehdi061. https://doi.org/10.63946/ehdi/19690

SUPPLEMENTARY FILES

Supplementary Material

REFERENCES

  1. Cieza A, Causey K, Kamenov K, Hanson SW, Chatterji S, Vos T. Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the Global Burden of Disease study 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396(10267):2006-17. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32340-0
  2. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737-45. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006
  3. Belkin AA, Rudnik EN, Belkin VA, Pinchuk EA, Lipovka NS. Optimization of step-by-step care for patients in intensive care units based on grade 6 of the Rehabilitation Routing Scale. Phys Rehabil Med Med Rehabil. 2021;3(1):142-8. doi:10.36425/rehab64082
  4. Ministry of Health of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Order No. 65 of April 7, 2023, on approval of the standard for organizing the provision of medical rehabilitation [Internet]. Astana: Adilet Legal Information System; 2023 [cited 2026 Oct 11]. Available from: https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/V2300032263
  5. Russell DJ, Avery LM, Rosenbaum PL, Raina PS, Walter SD, Palisano RJ. Improved scaling of the Gross Motor Function Measure for children with cerebral palsy: evidence of reliability and validity. Phys Ther. 2000;80(9):873-85. doi:10.1093/ptj/80.9.873
  6. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61-5.
  7. Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Horne V. The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud. 1988;10(2):61-3. doi:10.3109/09638288809164103
  8. Lim Y, Pritchard KT, Nam S, Hong I. Psychometric properties of the Modified Barthel Index for children with rare disorders. J Korean Soc Occup Ther. 2020;28(4):111-20. doi:10.14519/kjot.2020.28.4.09
  9. Barnett AG, van der Pols JC, Dobson AJ. Regression to the mean: what it is and how to deal with it. Int J Epidemiol. 2005;34(1):215-20. doi:10.1093/ije/dyh299
  10. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34-42. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
  11. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147-57. doi:10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3
  12. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e296. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296
  13. Benchimol EI, Smeeth L, Guttmann A, Harron K, Moher D, Petersen I, et al.; RECORD Working Committee. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. PLoS Med. 2015;12(10):e1001885. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001885
  14. Ivanova GE, Melnikov EV, Belkin AA, Beliaev AT, Bodrova RA, Builova TV, et al. How to organize medical rehabilitation? Bulletin of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2018;17(2):2-12. (In Russ.)
  15. Blinov DV, Solopova AG, Sandzhieva LN, Achkasov EE, Korabelnikov DI, Ampilogova DM, et al. Strengthening medical rehabilitation services in health system: a situation analysis. FARMAKOEKONOMIKA Modern Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2022;15(2):237-49. (In Russ.) doi:10.17749/2070-4909/farmakoekonomika.2022.140
  16. Oeffinger D, Bagley A, Rogers S, Gorton G, Kryscio R, Abel M, et al. Outcome tools used for ambulatory children with cerebral palsy: responsiveness and minimum clinically important differences. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008;50(12):918-25. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.03150.x
  17. Efron B, Tibshirani R. Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy. Stat Sci. 1986;1(1):54-75. doi:10.1214/ss/1177013815
  18. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(5):459-68. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00206-1
  19. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
  20. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 1995;57(1):289-300. doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
  21. Gwet KL. Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2008;61(Pt 1):29-48. doi:10.1348/000711006X126600
  22. Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB. Bias, prevalence and kappa. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(5):423-9. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(93)90018-V
  23. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-74. doi:10.2307/2529310
  24. Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(5):1763-8. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864
  25. Iyer LV, Haley SM, Watkins MP, Dumas HM. Establishing minimal clinically important differences for scores on the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory for inpatient rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 2003;83(10):888-98. doi:10.1093/ptj/83.10.888

LICENSE

Creative Commons License
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.