RehabMeasures Instrument
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Rivermead Mobility Index

Rivermead Mobility Index

Last Updated

Purpose

The Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) is a 15-item measure that assesses functional mobility related to gait, balance, and transfers. Fourteen of the items are self-reported and one is observation. The measure was designed for use after a stroke or head injury. 

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym RMI

Area of Assessment

Balance – Non-vestibular
Functional Mobility
Gait

Assessment Type

Observer

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Free

Cost Description

No additional costs to use and administer the assessment, except for purchasing a stopwatch/means of tracking time if needed.

CDE Status

NINDS CDE Notice of Copyright (accessed 3/11/2024) may be viewed here:

 

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Brain Injury Recovery
  • Spinal Cord Injury
  • Stroke Recovery

Populations

Stroke
Multiple Sclerosis
Limb Loss and Amputation

Key Descriptions

  • The RMI is an extension of the Rivermead Motor Assessment Gross Function Scale.
  • Appropriate for a range of disabilities that include anything from being bedridden to being unable to run.
  • 15 items:
    14 self-reported items
    1 direct observation item
  • Self-report items inquire about functional activities ranging from turning over in bed to running 10 meters
    ○ Observe client standing without support for 10 seconds
    ○ Items progress in difficulty
  • Item-level scores are from 0-1 depending on if the patient can complete the task according to specific instructions (“No” = 0, “Yes” = 1)
    ○ 14 items are rated from self-report
    ○ 1 item is observation and the observer scores 0 or 1 based on performance ability
  • Scores for each item are summed for a maximum score of 15 and a minimum score of 0
    ○ Higher scores indicate better mobility performance
    ○ A score of 0 indicates an inability to complete any of the 15 tasks

Number of Items

15

Time to Administer

3-5 minutes

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Jason Raad, MS and the Rehabilitation Measures Team in 2010; Updated with references for the lower limb amputee population by Noelle Fillmore, SPT and Valerie Kramer, SPT in 2011; Updated by Irene Ward, PT, DPT, NCS and the TBI EDGE task force of the Neurology Section of the APTA in 2012. Updated in May, 2024 by University of Illinois Entry-level Occupational Therapy Doctorate students Feba Elayadom, Bridget Egan, Samra Haseeb, and Keya Patel under the direction of Sabrin Rizk, PhD, OTR/L, Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Illinois Chicago.

Body Part

Upper Extremity
Lower Extremity
Back

ICF Domain

Activity

Measurement Domain

Motor

Professional Association Recommendation

Recommendations for use of the instrument from the Neurology Section of the American Physical Therapy Association’s Multiple Sclerosis Taskforce (MSEDGE), Parkinson’s Taskforce (PD EDGE), Spinal Cord Injury Taskforce (PD EDGE), Stroke Taskforce (StrokEDGE), Traumatic Brain Injury Taskforce (TBI EDGE), and Vestibular Taskforce (Vestibular EDGE) are listed below. These recommendations were developed by a panel of research and clinical experts using a modified Delphi process.

 

For detailed information about how recommendations were made, please visit: 

 

Abbreviations:

 

HR

Highly Recommend

R

Recommend

LS / UR

Reasonable to use, but limited study in target group  / Unable to Recommend

NR

Not Recommended

 

Recommendations based on level of care in which the assessment is taken:

 

Acute Care

Inpatient Rehabilitation

Skilled Nursing Facility

Outpatient

Rehabilitation

Home Health

MS EDGE

R

R

R

R

R

TBI EDGE

NR

LS

LS

LS

LS

 

Recommendations for use based on ambulatory status after brain injury:

 

Completely Independent

Mildly dependant

Moderately Dependant

Severely Dependant

TBI EDGE

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Recommendations based on EDSS Classification:

 

EDSS 0.0 – 3.5

EDSS 4.0 – 5.5

EDSS 6.0 – 7.5

EDSS 8.0 – 9.5

MS EDGE

R

R

R

R

 

Recommendations for entry-level physical therapy education and use in research:

 

Students should learn to administer this tool? (Y/N)

Students should be exposed to tool? (Y/N)

Appropriate for use in intervention research studies? (Y/N)

Is additional research warranted for this tool (Y/N)

MS EDGE

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

TBI EDGE

No

No

No

Not reported

 

Recommendations for use in the target population of Multiple Sclerosis (MS):

MS Edge

  • Highly recommended in acute, inpatient rehabilitation, home health, skilled nursing, and outpatient practice settings.
  • Recommended for EDSS 0.0-7.5; rating of 3 for Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) levels 0.0-7.5 reflects lack of responsiveness data in MS.
  • Not recommended for EDSS 8.0-9.5.

 

 

Considerations

  • The RMI does not assess mobility gained through environmental modifications such as the use of assistive devices.
  • The RMI utilizes a Guttman type scaling method.  However research suggests that assumptions for this scaling method might not hold on the first three items in the assessment as some patients are able to complete item 3 while not being able to perform items 1 or 2.  Therefore, caution should be used when interpreting results, particularly at the low end of the scale (Franchignoni et al, 2003).
  • The RMI is not appropriate for all amputees and its psychometric properties have a number of limitations. Its use is not recommended for lower limb amputees (Ryall et al, 2003). The RMI used for lower limb amputees seems more useful for epidemiological studies than for clinical decision-making in single patients when knowledge of precise changes due to interventions are necessary (Franchignoni et al, 2003a).
  • The RMI does not meet the Guttman scaling criteria coefficient of scalability, even if item columns have been rearranged. Therefore, the RMI cannot be considered in lower limb amputees as a hierarchical scale in which any particular item subsumes the items below it (Franchignoni et al, 2003a).
  • The RMI items are written in English, which makes the scale less accessible and potentially unsuitable for non-English speakers. They may have more difficulty accurately rating their functional mobility abilities and deficits.
  • Only one item on the RMI is observed, while the rest are self-reported. It is quick to perform, but it requires clients to have a certain degree of cognitive awareness of their abilities.
  • Because the item responses are simply "yes" or "no", there is little room for a nuanced understanding of clients' functional mobility. A client who manages stairs with maximum assistance and a client who manages stairs with partial assistance are both being scored as a "0". 

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Stroke

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Chronic Stroke: (Chen et al. 2007; n = 50; mean age = 60.9 (12.8) years; time since onset = 15.9 (5.3) months; Taiwanese sample)

  • SEM = 0.8 points

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Chronic Stroke: (Chen et al, 2007)

  • SEM = 0.8 points

Normative Data

Acute Stroke: (Antonucci et al, 2002; n = 302*; mean age = 62.79 (11.94) years; mean number of days between stroke and admission = 52.48 (36.22) days)

 

Measure

Sample 1*

Sample 2*

Age

63.79 (10.99)

60.93 (11.56)

RMI admission score

3.16 (3.82)

5.21 (4.73)

RMI discharge score

8 (4.57)

9.75 (4.44)

CNS admission score

6.38 (3.51)

6.53 (2.39)

CNS discharge score

7.35 (2.55)

7.73 (2.36)

BI admission score

37.25 (27.00)

49.95 (29.15)

BI discharge score

67.80 (26.62)

78.10 (23.73)

RMI = Rivermead Mobility Index

CNS = Canadian Neurological Scale

BI = Barthel Index

Test/Retest Reliability

Chronic Stroke: (Green, Foster & Young, 2001; n = 22; 1 year post-stroke, assessed twice, with one week between assessments)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability for the following subcategories:
    • Kappa for turning in bed = 1.0
    • Kappa for walking inside without aid = 0.89
    • Kappa for walking outside on uneven ground = 0.83
    • Kappa for bathing = 0.81
    • Kappa for picking objects off the floor = 0.79
  • Adequate test-retest reliability for the following subcategories:
    • Kappa for stairs = 0.68
    • Kappa for lying to sitting = 0.64
    • Kappa for sitting balance = 0.64
    • Kappa for transfers = 0.64
    • Kappa for walking up and down 4 steps = 0.67

Chronic Stroke: (Chen et al., 2007)

  • Excellent overall test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.96)

 

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Acute Stroke: (Schindl et al., 2000; n = 46; mean age: 72.0 years; median time since stroke = 3 days; German sample)

  • Excellent  interrater reliability (n = 12): (r = 0.98, P < 0.0012)

Acute Stroke: (Hsueh et al, 2003; n = 57; mean age of 64.2 (11.5) years; assessed at 14, 30, 90, and 180 days post stroke; Taiwanese sample)

  • Excellent interrater reliability for total score (ICC = 0.92)
  • Poor to excellent interrater reliability for individual subcategories (Weighted Kappa = 0.37 - 0.94)

Internal Consistency

Acute Stroke: (Franchignoni et al, 2003b; n = 73; inpatients undergoing rehabilitation; assessed at rehab admission and 5 weeks)

  • Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.92)
  • Excellent internal consistency for Brazilian sample (Cronbach’s alpha= 0.99) 

Chronic and Acute Stroke: (Roorda et al, 2008; n = 620 mixed Dutch and English sample; onset ranged from 3 weeks to > 1 year)

  • Excellent (assessed with coefficient ρ)
    • English speaking sample (ρ = 0.96)
    • Dutch speaking sample (ρ = 0.97)
    • Reliability coefficient ρ range 0–1; ρ ≥ 0.90 is recommended for decisions regarding individual patients

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Predictive validity:

Acute Stroke: (Sommerfeld & von Arbin, 2001; n = 115 inpatients aged ≥ 65)

  • RMI scores of ≥ 4 best predictor of early discharge home

Concurrent validity:

Acute Stroke: (Hsueh et al, 2003)

  • Excellent concurrent validity with:
    • Modified Rivermead Mobility Index:
      • Day 14:  (r = 0.78)
      • Day 30:  (r = 0.90)
      • Day 90:  (r = 0.90)
      • Day 180:  (r = 0.93)
    • STREAM
      • Day 14:  (r = 0.69)
      • Day 30:  (r = 0.87)
      • Day 90:  (r = 0.82)
      • Day 180:  (r = 0.85)

 

Acute Stroke: (Schindl et al., 2000)

  • Excellent concurrent validity between the 10-m walk time and the German RMI at baseline (r = 0.734)
  • Excellent concurrent validity between the 10-m walk time and the German RMI three weeks after admission (r = 0.919)

 

Chronic Stroke: (Schindl et al., 2000; n = 151; mean age: 70.0 years; mean time since stroke = 88 days; German sample)

  • Excellent concurrent validity between the motor-FIM and the German RMI at baseline (r = 0.78)
  • Excellent concurrent validity between the motor-FIM and the German RMI three weeks after admission (r = 0.79)

 

 

Construct Validity

Acute Stroke: (Hsueh et al, 2003)

  • Excellent correlation with BI at 14 days post stroke (r = 0.72)
  • Excellent correlation with BI at 30 days post stroke (r = 0.88)
  • Excellent correlation with BI at 90 days post stroke (r = 0.86)
  • Excellent correlation with BI at 180 days post stroke (r = 0.88)

Content Validity

Acute Stroke: (Hsieh et al, 2000) 

  • Critical values for two indicess, coefficient of reproducibility (> 0.9) and coefficient of scalability (> 0.7), were all exceeded

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Acute Stroke: (Hsueh et al, 2003)

 

Floor and Ceiling Effects

 

 

Time after stroke (d)

RMI, n%, floor

RMI, n%, ceiling

14 (n=57)

23(40.4) Poor

0 (0) Excellent

30 (n=54)

6(11.1) Adequate

2(3.7) Adequate

90 (n=44)

1(2.3) Adequate

3(6.8) Adequate

180 (n=43)

0 (0) Excellent

2(4.7) Adequate

Chronic Stroke: (Schindl et al., 2000)

  • Moderate ceiling effect indicated - no percentage was reported

 

 

Responsiveness

Acute Stroke: (Hsueh et al, 2003)

Days Post Stroke

n

RMI

MRMI

STREAM

BI

14–30

51

1.14

1.31

1.17

1.51

30–90

43

0.86

0.83

0.95

1.07

90–180

43

0.24

0.20

0.40

0.35

14–90

43

1.67

1.56

1.61

2.09

14–180

43

1.94

1.53

1.65

2.01

Values reported as SRM (Standardized Response Mean)

 

 

 

 

 

RMI = Rivermead Mobility Index

MRMI = Modified Rivermead Mobility Index

STREAM = Mobility Subscale of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement

BI = Barthel Index

 

 

 

 

 

Acute Stroke: (Schindl et al., 2000)

  • Significant  increase in pre- and post median RMI values from 2 [0; 4] to 4 [1; 8.75] points
  • Significant correlation between the pre-and post-change of the German RMI and the change of the 10-minute walk time (r = 0.87, P < 0.0001)

 

Chronic Stroke: (Schindl et al., 2000)

  • Median RMI stayed constant, being 13 [7; 14] before and 13 [9; 15] after; however, the 1st and 3rd quartile significantly increased, indicating that the German RMI is responsive to treatment in chronic stroke subjects

  • Significant correlation was found between the pre-and 

    post-change of the German RMI and the change in motor-FIM (r = 0.54, P < 0.0001)

     

 

Limb Loss and Amputation

back to Populations

Test/Retest Reliability

Lower Limb Amputees: (Ryall et al, 2003; n = 62; mean age = 56.8 (18.8) years; mean time post amputation: 4.9 (14.7) years)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.99)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Lower Limb Amputees: (Ryall et al, 2003)

  • concurrent validity with TWT (r = -0.58)
  • Only one value is outside the 95% limits of agreement

Construct Validity

Convergent validity in lower limb amputees: (Franchignoni et al, 2003a, n = 140; mean age = 57 (18) years)

  • Excellent correlation with motFIM at beginning of prosthetic training (r = 0.83)
  • Excellent correlation with motFIM at end of prosthetic training (r = 0.69)
  • Excellent correlation of the change scores for the RMI with changes in motFIM (r = 0.75)
  • Excellent correlation with TWT (timed walking test) at end of prosthetic training (r = -0.70)

Content Validity

Lower limb amputees: (Franchignoni et al, 2003a) 

  • Coefficient of reproducibility was exceeded and ranged from 0.71-1.0
  • Coefficient of scalability was not exceeded and ranged from 0.38-0.62 

 

Lower limb amputees: (Ryall et al, 2003) 

  • Coefficient of reproducibility was exceeded and ranged from 0.91-0.94

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Lower limb amputees: (Ryall et al, 2003)

  • 35% of patients in study affirmed all 15 items, resulting in a poor ceiling effect

Multiple Sclerosis

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Multiple Sclerosis: (Freeman et al., 2013; n = 70; mean age = 54 (10) years; mean years since diagnosis = 11 (8) years; scores from a local community outpatient setting assessed by a neuro-physiotherapist)

  • SEM (calculated) for entire group (n = 70): 0.49

 

Multiple Sclerosis: (Krawcyk et al., 2013; n = 40; mean age = 42 (10.49) years; mean time since diagnosis = 9.3 years; Danish sample and translation of RMI)

  • SEM (calculated) for the entire group (n = 40): 0.87

 

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Multiple Sclerosis: (Freeman et al., 2013)

  • MDC (calculated) for entire group (n = 70): 1.36

 

Multiple Sclerosis: (Krawcyk et al., 2013)

  • MDC (calculated) for entire group (n = 40): 2.41

 

Normative Data

Multiple Sclerosis: (Freeman et al., 2013)

  • Mean score at baseline: 13.37 (1.96)
  • Mean score at 1 year: 12.74 (2.87)
  • Mean change: -0.63 (1.97)
  • Type of MS:
    • Benign: 5 (7%)
    • Relapsing-remitting: 31 (44%)
    • Primary progressive: 9 (13%)
    • Secondary progressive: 15 (22%)
    • Uncertain: 10 (14%)

 

Multiple Sclerosis: (Baert et al., 2018; n = 191; mean age = 48.7 (10.5) years; mean years since diagnosis = 11.9 (8.1); Expanded Disability Status Scale score (EDSS) ≥2 and ≤6.5 and received at least 10 sessions of physical therapy)

  • Mild disability group (n = 72) (EDSS ≤ 4)
    • Mean score at baseline: 14 (IQR = 14-15)
    • Mean score after physical rehabilitation: 15 (14-15)
  • Moderate-severe disability group (n = 119) (EDSS ≤ 4.5-6.5)
    • Mean score at baseline: 12 (11-14)
    • Mean score after physical rehabilitation: 13 (11-14)
  • Whole group (n = 191)
    • Mean score at baseline: 13 (12-14)
    • Mean score after physical rehabilitation: 14 (12-15)

 

Internal Consistency

Multiple Sclerosis: (Hobert & Cano, 2009; n = 667; ages 16-84 years; time post-injury not specified)

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha: 0.91

 

Construct Validity

Multiple Sclerosis: (Hobert & Cano, 2009)

  • The Adequate to Excellent item-total correlations (r = 0.47-0.76 (with the exception of the “running” item), the Excellent alpha coefficient (α = 0.91), and the homogeneity coefficient of 0.38 support the internal construct validity of the RMI

 

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Multiple Sclerosis: (Krawcyk et al., 2013)

  • Poor  ceiling effects of 47.5% were found in this sample

 

Responsiveness

Multiple Sclerosis: (Freeman et al., 2013)

  • Total effect size: -0.32
  • Worse (n = 40): -0.36
  • Same (n = 23): -0.43
  • Better (n = 7): +0.13

 

Bibliography

Antonucci, G., Aprile, T., et al. (2002). Rasch analysis of the Rivermead Mobility Index: a study using mobility measures of first-stroke inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 83: 1442-1449. 

Baert, I., Smedal, T., et al. (2018). Responsiveness and meaningful improvement of mobility measures following MS rehabilitation. Neurology, 91(20), e1880-e1892.

Chen, H. M., Hsieh, C. L., et al. (2007). The test-retest reliability of 2 mobility performance tests in patients with chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 21(4): 347-352. 

Franchignoni, F., Brunelli, S., et al. (2003a). Is the Rivermead Mobility Index a suitable outcome measure in lower limb amputees?--A psychometric validation study. J Rehabil Med 35(3): 141-144. 

Franchignoni, F., Tesio, L., et al. (2003b). Psychometric properties of the Rivermead Mobility Index in Italian stroke rehabilitation inpatients. Clinical Rehabilitation 17(3): 273-282. 

Freeman, J., Walters, R., et al. (2013). Evaluating change in mobility in people with multiple sclerosis: relative responsiveness of four clinical measures. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 19(12), 1632-1639.

Green, J., Forster, A., et al. (2001). A test-retest reliability study of the Barthel Index, the Rivermead Mobility Index, the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale and the Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients. Disability and Rehabilitation 23(15): 670-676. 

Hobart, J., & Cano, S. (2009). Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: the role of new psychometric methods. Health Technology Assessment, 13(12), 33-61. 

Hsieh, C. L., Hsueh, I. P., et al. (2000). Validity and responsiveness of the rivermead mobility index in stroke patients. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 32(3): 140-142. 

Hsueh, I. P., Wang, C. H., et al. (2003). Comparison of psychometric properties of three mobility measures for patients with stroke. Stroke 34(7): 1741-1745. 

Krawcyk, R. S., Hagell, P., & Hammarlund, C. S. (2013). Danish translation and psychometric testing of the Rivermead Mobility Index. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 128(4), e20-e25.

Roorda, L. D., Green, J., et al. (2008). Excellent cross-cultural validity, intra-test reliability and construct validity of the Dutch Rivermead Mobility Index in patients after stroke undergoing rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med 40(9): 727-732. 

Ryall, N. H., Eyres, S. B., et al. (2003). Is the Rivermead Mobility Index appropriate to measure mobility in lower limb amputees? Disabil Rehabil 25(3): 143-153. 

Schindl, M. R., Forstner, C., Kern, H., Zipko, H. T., Rupp, M., & Zifko, U. A. (2000). Evaluation of a German version of the Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) in acute and chronic stroke patients. European Journal of Neurology, 7(5), 523–528. 

Sommerfeld, D. K. and von Arbin, M. H. (2001). Disability test 10 days after acute stroke to predict early discharge home in patients 65 years and older. Clinical Rehabilitation 15(5): 528-534. 

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Feb 27, 2025

Psychosocial Impact of Ass...

read more

updated Sep 4, 2024

Modified Fatigue Impact Sc...

read more

updated Aug 28, 2024

NIH Toolbox for Assessment...

read more