Responsiveness of two upper extremity function instruments for stroke inpatients receiving rehabilitation

Objective: To compare the responsiveness of the Action Research Arm test (ARAT) and the upper extremity section of the Motor Assessment Scale (UE-MAS) in assessing the recovery of upper extremity function in stroke inpatients receiving rehabilitation. Subjects: Forty-eight stroke inpatients. Setting: The physical medicine and rehabilitation department of a medical centre. Design: The patients were tested at admission and at discharge from the department. Methods: Various indices, including effect size d, Wilcoxon test and Spearman's rho, were used to assess responsiveness. The change in score of the upper extremity subscale of the Fugl-Meyer scale was used as the external criterion. Results: The responsiveness indices of both total scores of the ARAT and UE-MAS are generally moderate and similar (d = 0.52, Wilcoxon Z = 5.03, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.66 for the ARAT; d = 0.45, Z = 4.54, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.7 for the UE-MAS). Responsiveness indices are small to moderate and similar in each of the subscales of both instruments. Conclusion: The results of this study support the value of the ARAT and UE-MAS for measuring recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients.

[1]  R. Lyle.  A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research , 1981, International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation.

[2]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[3]  R A Deyo,et al.  Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. , 1986, Journal of chronic diseases.

[4]  P. Stratford,et al.  Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment for testing motor performance in patients following stroke. , 1993, Physical therapy.

[5]  J. H. van der Lee,et al.  Forced use of the upper extremity in chronic stroke patients: results from a single-blind randomized clinical trial. , 1999, Stroke.

[6]  G. Kwakkel,et al.  Intensity of leg and arm training after primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke: a randomised trial , 1999, The Lancet.

[7]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.

[8]  M. Granat,et al.  Electrical stimulation of wrist extensors in poststroke hemiplegia. , 1999, Stroke.

[9]  D. Carroll,et al.  A QUANTITATIVE TEST OF UPPER EXTREMITY FUNCTION. , 1965, Journal of chronic diseases.

[10]  S. G. Nelson,et al.  Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment of sensorimotor recovery following cerebrovascular accident. , 1983, Physical therapy.

[11]  A. Fugl-Meyer,et al.  The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. , 1975, Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[12]  M H Liang,et al.  Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. , 1985, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[13]  I. Hsueh,et al.  Inter-rater reliability and validity of the action research arm test in stroke patients. , 1998, Age and ageing.

[14]  Robert C. Wagenaar,et al.  Therapy Impact on Functional Recovery in Stroke Rehabilitation , 1999 .

[15]  Hemiplegia , 1901, The Hospital.

[16]  F. Malouin,et al.  Evaluating motor recovery early after stroke: comparison of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment and the Motor Assessment Scale. , 1994, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[17]  W. Weerdt.  Measuring recovery of arm-hand function in stroke patients: A comparison of the Brunnstrom-Fugl-Meyer test and the Action Research Arm test , 1985 .

[18]  N B Lincoln,et al.  Effect of severity of arm impairment on response to additional physiotherapy early after stroke , 1999, Clinical rehabilitation.

[19]  A J Thompson,et al.  Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure , 1999, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[20]  F. I. Mahonery.  Functional evaluation : Barthel index , 1965 .

[21]  A. Prevo,et al.  The long-term outcome of arm function after stroke: results of a follow-up study. , 1999, Disability and rehabilitation.

[22]  J. Poole,et al.  Motor assessment scale for stroke patients: concurrent validity and interrater reliability. , 1988, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[23]  J. Carr,et al.  Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. , 1985, Physical therapy.