The Capabilities of Upper Extremity instrument: reliability and validity of a measure of functional limitation in tetraplegia.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Capabilities of Upper Extremity (CUE) instrument, designed to measure upper extremity functional limitations in individuals with tetraplegia. Functional limitations are actions such as reaching or grasping and are a link between the domains of impairment and disability. DESIGN Survey of people with chronic spinal cord injury. SETTING Regional spinal cord injury center. SUBJECTS One hundred fifty-four individuals (140 male) with tetraplegia at least 1 year after injury and followed by the center. Mean age was 36.7 years (SD=11.1). Sixty-eight percent were motor complete. METHODS The 32-item CUE was administered by telephone interview twice about 2 weeks apart. The motor portion of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) was collected during the first interview. Upper extremity motor scores and motor levels were obtained from the most recent assessment in the outpatient chart. The instrument was evaluated for internal consistency, reliability, and validity. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to examine scale structure. RESULTS Homogeneity of the scale was excellent. Cronbach's alpha was .96, and item-total correlations ranged from .49 to .78. Test-retest reliability was high (ICC=.94). All but three items had desired levels of agreement (K > .60). Analysis of variance indicated that the CUE distinguished between motor levels of tetraplegia more than one level apart. The CUE was correlated highly with both motor scores and FIM. Regression analysis indicated that the CUE was better than upper extremity motor scores for predicting FIM scores. The model containing the CUE explained 73% of the variance in FIM and was not enhanced by the addition of motor scores. Factor analysis suggested four potential subscales: arm function (bilateral), right hand function, left hand function, and reaching down. CONCLUSION The CUE exhibits good homogeneity, reliability, and validity; further work is needed to determine its sensitivity to change in function.

[1]  Gale G. Whiteneck,et al.  Spinal cord injury : clinical outcomes from the model systems , 1995 .

[2]  S A Studenski,et al.  Does functional reach improve with rehabilitation? , 1993, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[3]  C. Granger,et al.  The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure. , 1994, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[4]  Mary Skruppy.  Activities of Daily Living Evaluations , 1993 .

[5]  J. Fleiss.  Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1974 .

[6]  B Kirshner,et al.  A methodological framework for assessing health indices. , 1985, Journal of chronic diseases.

[7]  Jette Am,et al.  Functional Status Index: reliability of a chronic disease evaluation instrument. , 1980 .

[8]  E. Mackenzie,et al.  The development of the Functional Capacity Index. , 1996, The Journal of trauma.

[9]  J. Osberg,et al.  Program evaluation of physical medicine and rehabilitation departments using self-report Barthel. , 1986, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[10]  Andrew M. Pope,et al.  Disability in America: Toward a National Agenda for Prevention. Summary and Recommendations. , 1991 .

[11]  A. Jette,et al.  The Functional Independence Measure: tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories. , 1996, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[12]  M. Keith,et al.  Development of a quantitative hand grasp and release test for patients with tetraplegia using a hand neuroprosthesis. , 1994, The Journal of hand surgery.

[13]  D. Streiner,et al.  Health Measurement Scales: A practical guide to thier development and use , 1989 .

[14]  R. H. Jebsen,et al.  An objective and standardized test of hand function. , 1969, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[15]  C. Granger,et al.  The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. , 1996, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[16]  R A Deyo,et al.  Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. , 1991, Controlled clinical trials.

[17]  E. Bergstrom,et al.  Long-term spinal cord injury: functional changes over time. , 1993, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[18]  A. G. Fisher,et al.  Functional measures, Part 2: Selecting the right test, minimizing the limitations. , 1992, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[19]  D O Hancock,et al.  The value of postural reduction in the initial management of closed injuries of the spine with paraplegia and tetraplegia , 1969, Paraplegia.

[20]  A. E. Maxwell,et al.  Fundamental statistics in psychology and education , 1943 .

[21]  W J MacLennan,et al.  The accuracy of self and informant ratings of physical functional capacity in the elderly. , 1992, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[22]  A. Guccione.  Physical therapy diagnosis and the relationship between impairments and function. , 1991, Physical therapy.

[23]  John Cotton,et al.  Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. 6th ed. , 1978 .

[24]  B. Ford.  International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps , 1984, Releve epidemiologique hebdomadaire.

[25]  W. Donovan,et al.  The International Standards Booklet for Neurological and Functional Classification of Spinal Cord Injury , 1994, Paraplegia.

[26]  L. Cronbach.  Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests , 1951 .

[27]  R. Sitgreaves.  Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). , 1979 .

[28]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[29]  G. Whiteneck.  Outcome Evaluation and Spinal Cord Injury1 , 1992 .