Test–Retest Reliability of Robotic Assessment Measures for the Evaluation of Upper Limb Recovery

Rehabilitation robots have built-in technology and sensors that allow accurate measurement of movement kinematics and kinetics, which can be used to derive measures related to upper limb performance and highlight changes in motor behavior due to rehabilitation. This study aimed to assess the test-retest reliability of some robot-measured parameters by analyzing their intra-session and inter-session (day-by-day) variability. The study was carried out in two groups: 31 patients after stroke and 15 healthy subjects. Both groups practiced two different motor tasks consisting of point-to-point reaching movements in the shape of two geometrical figures that were selected for the assessment of global and directional (eight directions of the workspace) test-retest reliability. The reliability of six parameters measuring movement velocity, accuracy, efficiency and smoothness was assessed intra-session and inter-session by the ICC, SEM, and CV. Healthy subjects exhibited very high ICC values ( > 0.85) and low SEM for all parameters. Patients had high ICC values and low SEM but their global reliability was generally lower compared to healthy subjects. In addition, their inter-session reliability showed very high ICC values ( > 0.91) and low SEM for all parameters. Direction analysis showed that in some parameters the reliability was generally high but not homogeneous in all directions. In addition, some directions showed systematic error. This study demonstrates that robot-measured parameters are reliable and can be considered ideal candidates for use in combination with impairment and functional clinical scales to evaluate motor improvement during robot-assisted neurorehabilitation.

[1]  R. Colombo,et al.  Measuring Changes of Movement Dynamics During Robot-Aided Neurorehabilitation of Stroke Patients , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[2]  R Colombo,et al.  Robot-aided neurorehabilitation in sub-acute and chronic stroke: does spontaneous recovery have a limited impact on outcome? , 2013, NeuroRehabilitation.

[3]  Gert Kwakkel,et al.  Impact of Time on Improvement of Outcome After Stroke , 2006, Stroke.

[4]  N. Hogan,et al.  Robot-aided neurorehabilitation. , 1998, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[5]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[6]  W. Rymer,et al.  Robot-assisted reaching exercise promotes arm movement recovery in chronic hemiparetic stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study , 2006, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[7]  K. McGraw,et al.  Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. , 1996 .

[8]  C. Burgar,et al.  MIME robotic device for upper-limb neurorehabilitation in subacute stroke subjects: A follow-up study. , 2006, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[9]  B. Volpe,et al.  Kinematic Robot-Based Evaluation Scales and Clinical Counterparts to Measure Upper Limb Motor Performance in Patients With Chronic Stroke , 2010, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[10]  H. Krebs,et al.  Effects of Robot-Assisted Therapy on Upper Limb Recovery After Stroke: A Systematic Review , 2008, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[11]  J M Linacre,et al.  FIM measurement properties and Rasch model details. , 1997, Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[12]  Grant D. Huang,et al.  Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  M. Levesley,et al.  Systematic review of outcome measures used in the evaluation of robot-assisted upper limb exercise in stroke. , 2011, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[14]  Maarten J. IJzerman,et al.  Systematic review of the effect of robot-aided therapy on recovery of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. , 2006, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[15]  Janice I. Glasgow,et al.  Assessment of Upper-Limb Sensorimotor Function of Subacute Stroke Patients Using Visually Guided Reaching , 2010, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[16]  George D. Fulk,et al.  Boyne Stroke Minimal to Moderate Impairment Due to Chronic Upper-Extremity Fugl-Meyer Scale in People With Clinically Important Differences , 2012 .

[17]  J. Weir.  Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. , 2005, Journal of strength and conditioning research.

[18]  S. Micera,et al.  Robotic techniques for upper limb evaluation and rehabilitation of stroke patients , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[19]  V. Sanguineti,et al.  Robotic Assessment of Upper Limb Motor Function After Stroke , 2012, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[20]  J. Mehrholz,et al.  Computerized Arm Training Improves the Motor Control of the Severely Affected Arm After Stroke: A Single-Blinded Randomized Trial in Two Centers , 2005, Stroke.

[21]  C. Stinear,et al.  Prediction of recovery of motor function after stroke , 2010, The Lancet Neurology.

[22]  M. Posch,et al.  Reliability and validity of the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale and a modified scale for testing muscle strength in patients with radial palsy. , 2008, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[23]  N. Hogan,et al.  Submovements grow larger, fewer, and more blended during stroke recovery. , 2003, Motor control.

[24]  T. Platz,et al.  Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test: a multicentre study , 2005, Clinical rehabilitation.

[25]  Etienne Burdet,et al.  A Robust and Sensitive Metric for Quantifying Movement Smoothness , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[26]  J. Harlaar,et al.  The application of generalizability theory to reliability assessment: an illustration using isometric force measurements. , 1993, Physical therapy.

[27]  Ronney B Panerai,et al.  Reliability of dynamic cerebral autoregulation measurement using spontaneous fluctuations in blood pressure. , 2009, Clinical science.

[28]  Theo Gasser,et al.  Assessing intrarater, interrater and test–retest reliability of continuous measurements , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[29]  Silvestro Micera,et al.  Tracking Motor Improvement at the Subtask Level During Robot-Aided Neurorehabilitation of Stroke Patients , 2012, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

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

[31]  P. Dario,et al.  Assessing Mechanisms of Recovery During Robot-Aided Neurorehabilitation of the Upper Limb , 2008, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[32]  C. van der Schans,et al.  Measuring physical fitness in persons with severe/profound intellectual and multiple disabilities , 2011 .

[33]  G. Sandini,et al.  Robot therapy of the upper limb in stroke patients: preliminary experiences for the principle-based use of this technology. , 2009, Functional neurology.

[34]  T. Platz,et al.  Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving generic activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. , 2012, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[35]  S. Black,et al.  The Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Motor Recovery after Stroke: A Critical Review of Its Measurement Properties , 2002, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[36]  Catherine E Lang,et al.  Active range of motion predicts upper extremity function 3 months after stroke. , 2009, Stroke.

[37]  L. Richards,et al.  Rasch analysis staging methodology to classify upper extremity movement impairment after stroke. , 2013, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[38]  P. Morasso,et al.  Braccio di Ferro: a new haptic workstation for neuromotor rehabilitation. , 2006, Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine.