Measurement Structure of the Wolf Motor Function Test: Implications for Motor Control Theory

Background. Tools chosen to measure poststroke upper-extremity rehabilitation outcomes must match contemporary theoretical expectations of motor deficit and recovery because an assessment’s theoretical underpinning forms the conceptual basis for interpreting its score. Objective. The purpose of this study was to investigate the theoretical framework of the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) by (1) determining whether all items measured a single underlying trait and (2) examining the congruency between the hypothesized and the empirically determined item difficulty orders. Methods. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch analysis were applied to existing WMFT Functional Ability Rating Scale data from 189 participants in the EXCITE (Extremity Constraint-Induced Therapy Evaluation) trial. Fit of a 1-factor CFA model (all items) was compared with the fit of a 2-factor CFA model (factors defined according to item object-grasp requirements) with fit indices, model comparison test, and interfactor correlations. Results. One item was missing sufficient data and therefore removed from analysis. CFA fit indices and the model-comparison test suggested that both models fit equally well. The 2-factor model yielded a strong interfactor correlation, and 13 of 14 items fit the Rasch model. The Rasch item difficulty order was consistent with the hypothesized item difficulty order. Conclusion. The results suggest that WMFT items measure a single construct. Furthermore, the results depict an item difficulty hierarchy that may advance the theoretical discussion of the person ability versus task difficulty interaction during stroke recovery.

[1]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[2]  Sandra B. Davis,et al.  Bilateral Arm Training With Rhythmic Auditory Cueing in Chronic Stroke: Not Always Efficacious , 2008, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[3]  M. Jeannerod Mechanisms of visuomotor coordination: A study in normal and brain-damaged subjects , 1986, Neuropsychologia.

[4]  K. Kerr Movement Science: Foundations for Physical Therapy in Rehabilitation , 1990 .

[5]  S. Wolf,et al.  Forced use of hemiplegic upper extremities to reverse the effect of learned nonuse among chronic stroke and head-injured patients , 1989, Experimental Neurology.

[6]  C. Prablanc,et al.  Final posture of the upper limb depends on the initial position of the hand during prehension movements , 1998, Experimental Brain Research.

[7]  Hermano I Krebs,et al.  Multicenter Randomized Trial of Robot-Assisted Rehabilitation for Chronic Stroke: Methods and Entry Characteristics for VA ROBOTICS , 2009, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[8]  E. Taub,et al.  Effects of constraint-induced movement therapy on patients with chronic motor deficits after stroke: a replication. , 1999, Stroke.

[9]  J. Krakauer,et al.  A computational neuroanatomy for motor control , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[10]  D. Flora,et al.  An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. , 2004, Psychological methods.

[11]  P. Fitts The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[12]  J. Whitall,et al.  Psychometric properties of a modified Wolf Motor Function test for people with mild and moderate upper-extremity hemiparesis. , 2006, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[13]  Stephanie Studenski,et al.  Dimensionality and construct validity of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the upper extremity. , 2007, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[14]  R. Wood Task complexity: Definition of the construct , 1986 .

[15]  C. Trombly,et al.  Effect of rehabilitation tasks on organization of movement after stroke. , 1999, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[16]  D. Andrich A rating formulation for ordered response categories , 1978 .

[17]  N. Miller,et al.  Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. , 1993, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[18]  E. Taub,et al.  The EXCITE Trial: Attributes of the Wolf Motor Function Test in Patients with Subacute Stroke , 2005, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[19]  Stacy L Fritz,et al.  Active Finger Extension Predicts Outcomes After Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy for Individuals With Hemiparesis After Stroke , 2005, Stroke.

[20]  Sirpa Mäki,et al.  The computer program , 1980 .

[21]  Sandra B. Davis,et al.  Effects of Trunk Restraint Combined With Intensive Task Practice on Poststroke Upper Extremity Reach and Function: A Pilot Study , 2009, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[22]  D. Man,et al.  The discriminative power of the Wolf motor function test in assessing upper extremity functions in persons with stroke. , 2006, International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation.

[23]  S. Wolf,et al.  Can the Wolf Motor Function Test be Streamlined? , 2009, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[24]  P. Fitts The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. 1954. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[25]  Janis J. Daly,et al.  Construction of Efficacious Gait and Upper Limb Functional Interventions Based on Brain Plasticity Evidence and Model-Based Measures For Stroke Patients , 2007, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[26]  Edward Taub,et al.  A method for standardizing procedures in rehabilitation: use in the extremity constraint induced therapy evaluation multisite randomized controlled trial. , 2009, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[27]  Mindy F Levin,et al.  A New Perspective in the Understanding of Hand Dysfunction Following Neurological Injury , 2007, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.

[28]  Ian McDowell,et al.  The Theoretical and Technical Foundations of Health Measurement , 1996 .

[29]  L. Tickle-Degnen,et al.  A kinematic study of contextual effects on reaching performance in persons with and without stroke: influences of object availability. , 2000, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

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

[31]  J. P. Miller,et al.  Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. , 2006, JAMA.

[32]  T. Mulder,et al.  The assessment of motor recovery: A new look at an old problem. , 1996, Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology.

[33]  M. Carter Movement Science Foundations for Physical Therapy in Rehabilitation, 2nd ed , 2002 .

[34]  A. M. Gentile,et al.  Movement Science: Implicit and Explicit Processes during Acquisition of Functional Skills , 1998 .

[35]  B. C. Harmeling-van der Wel,et al.  Hierarchical Properties of the Motor Function Sections of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale for People After Stroke: A Retrospective Study , 2008, Physical Therapy.

[36]  Y. Hsieh,et al.  Potential Predictors of Motor and Functional Outcomes After Distributed Constraint-Induced Therapy for Patients With Stroke , 2009, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[37]  F. van Wijck,et al.  Assessing Motor Deficits in Neurological Rehabilitation: Patterns of Instrument Usage , 2001, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[38]  S. Wolf,et al.  An application of upper-extremity constraint-induced movement therapy in a patient with subacute stroke. , 1999, Physical therapy.

[39]  Wiebren Zijlstra,et al.  Assessment of motor recovery and decline. , 2002, Gait & posture.

[40]  Paolo Maria Rossini,et al.  Muscles in “Concert”: Study of Primary Motor Cortex Upper Limb Functional Topography , 2008, PloS one.

[41]  Jonathan Vaughan,et al.  The posture-based motion planning framework: new findings related to object manipulation, moving around obstacles, moving in three spatial dimensions, and haptic tracking. , 2009, Advances in experimental medicine and biology.

[42]  Archana P. Sangole,et al.  Palmar arch dynamics during reach-to-grasp tasks , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[43]  E. Taub,et al.  Constraint-induced movement therapy for motor recovery after stroke. , 1997, NeuroRehabilitation.

[44]  M. Levin,et al.  What Do Motor “Recovery” and “Compensation” Mean in Patients Following Stroke? , 2009, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[45]  C. Fox,et al.  Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences , 2001 .

[46]  M. Woollacott,et al.  Motor Control: Translating Research into Clinical Practice , 2006 .

[47]  J. Linacre,et al.  Sample size and item calibration stability , 1994 .

[48]  E. Taub,et al.  The reliability of the wolf motor function test for assessing upper extremity function after stroke. , 2001, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[49]  F. Bryant,et al.  Principal-components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. , 1995 .

[50]  Stephen H Scott,et al.  Computational approaches to motor control and their potential role for interpreting motor dysfunction. , 2003, Current opinion in neurology.

[51]  R. Hambleton,et al.  Fundamentals of Item Response Theory , 1991 .

[52]  R. Nudo Adaptive plasticity in motor cortex: implications for rehabilitation after brain injury. , 2003, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[53]  A. Prochazka,et al.  Upper-extremity functional electric stimulation-assisted exercises on a workstation in the subacute phase of stroke recovery. , 2007, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

[54]  J. Krakauer Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. , 2006, Current opinion in neurology.

[55]  E A Fleishman,et al.  Relating individual differences to the dimensions of human tasks. , 1978, Ergonomics.

[56]  D. Morris,et al.  Constraint-induced movement therapy for moter recovery after stroke , 1997 .

[57]  E. Taub,et al.  Constraint-induced movement therapy: A new approach to treatment in physical rehabilitation. , 1998 .

[58]  James Gordon,et al.  Manual asymmetries in grasp pre-shaping and transport–grasp coordination , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[59]  Jm Linacre A user’s guide to model computer programs. , 2010 .

[60]  J. P. Miller,et al.  Methods for a Multisite Randomized Trial to Investigate the Effect of Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy in Improving Upper Extremity Function among Adults Recovering from a Cerebrovascular Stroke , 2003, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[61]  J. Howle Neuro-developmental treatment approach : theoretical foundations and principles of clinical practice , 2003 .

[62]  R. P. McDonald,et al.  Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis : The effect of sample size , 1988 .

[63]  S. Wolf,et al.  Assessing Wolf Motor Function Test as Outcome Measure for Research in Patients After Stroke , 2001, Stroke.