Evaluation of Performance‐Based Outcome Measures for the Upper Limb: A Comprehensive Narrative Review

Objective performance‐based outcome measures (OMs) have the potential to provide unbiased and reproducible assessments of limb function. However, very few of these performance‐based OMs have been validated for upper limb (UL) prosthesis users. OMs validated in other clinical populations (eg, neurologic or musculoskeletal conditions) could be used to fill gaps in existing performance‐based OMs for UL amputees. Additionally, a joint review might reveal consistent gaps across multiple clinical populations. Therefore, the objective of this review was to systematically characterize prominent measures used in both sets of clinical populations with regard to (1) location of task performance around the body, (2) possible grips employed, (3) bilateral versus unilateral task participation, and (4) details of scoring mechanisms. A systematic literature search was conducted in EMBASE, Medline, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health electronic databases for variations of the following terms: stroke, musculoskeletal dysfunction, amputation, prosthesis, upper limb, outcome, assessments. Articles were included if they described performance‐based OMs developed for disabilities of the UL. Results show most tasks were performed with 1 hand in the space directly in front of the participant. The tip, tripod, and cylindrical grips were most commonly used for the specific tasks. Few measures assessed sensation and movement quality. Overall, several limitations in OMs were identified. The solution to these limitations may be to modify and validate existing measures originally developed for other clinical populations as first steps to more aptly measure prosthesis use while more complete assessments for UL prosthesis users are being developed.

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

[2]  L. Resnik,et al.  Advanced upper limb prosthetic devices: implications for upper limb prosthetic rehabilitation. , 2012, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[3]  Hanneke Bouwsema,et al.  Determining skill level in myoelectric prosthesis use with multiple outcome measures. , 2012, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[4]  A. Danielsson,et al.  Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability at the item level of the Action Research Arm Test for patients with stroke. , 2014, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[5]  Jacqueline S. Hebert,et al.  Case report of modified Box and Blocks test with motion capture to measure prosthetic function. , 2012, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

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

[7]  C. Häger,et al.  Measurement properties of the Motor Evaluation Scale for Upper Extremity in Stroke patients (MESUPES) , 2012, Disability and rehabilitation.

[8]  M. Näder.  The artificial substitution of missing hands with myoelectrical prostheses. , 1990, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[9]  Heleen Beckerman,et al.  Improving the Action Research Arm test: a unidimensional hierarchical scale , 2002, Clinical rehabilitation.

[10]  Dick H. Plettenburg,et al.  Learning to use a body-powered prosthesis: changes in functionality and kinematics , 2016, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[11]  Gert Kwakkel,et al.  A comparison of two validated tests for upper limb function after stroke: The Wolf Motor Function Test and the Action Research Arm Test. , 2010, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[12]  Measuring upper limb capacity in poststroke patients: development, fit of the monotone homogeneity model, unidimensionality, fit of the double monotonicity model, differential item functioning, internal consistency, and feasibility of the stroke upper limb capacity scale, SULCS. , 2011, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[13]  A. Eliasson,et al.  Assessment of capacity for myoelectric control: a new Rasch-built measure of prosthetic hand control. , 2005, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[14]  S. Brauer,et al.  Rasch-based scoring offered more precision in differentiating patient groups in measuring upper limb function. , 2013, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  Hilde Feys,et al.  Can quality of movement be measured? Rasch analysis and inter-rater reliability of the Motor Evaluation Scale for Upper Extremity in Stroke Patients (MESUPES) , 2006, Clinical rehabilitation.

[16]  K. Tong,et al.  The responsiveness and correlation between Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Motor Status Scale, and the Action Research Arm Test in chronic stroke with upper-extremity rehabilitation robotic training , 2011, International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation.

[17]  D. Urbach,et al.  Factors influencing the reporting of adverse medical device events: qualitative interviews with physicians about higher risk implantable devices , 2017, BMJ Quality & Safety.

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

[19]  Anders Skrondal,et al.  Musculoskeletal pain and overuse syndromes in adult acquired major upper-limb amputees. , 2011, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[20]  H. Flor,et al.  The Arm Motor Ability Test: reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of an instrument for assessing disabilities in activities of daily living. , 1997, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[21]  H. Johansen-Berg,et al.  Evaluation of the Modifid Jebsen Test of Hand Function and the University of Maryland Arm Questionnaire for Stroke , 2004, Clinical rehabilitation.

[22]  S. Studenski,et al.  Longitudinal stability of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the upper extremity. , 2008, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[23]  N B Lincoln,et al.  The scalability of the Rivermead Motor Assessment in nonacute stroke patients , 1997, Clinical rehabilitation.

[24]  M. Tremblay,et al.  A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review , 2008, The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity.

[25]  Jin-Shei Lai,et al.  Assessing arm and hand function after stroke: a validity test of the hierarchical scoring system used in the motor assessment scale for stroke. , 2005, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[26]  Lennart Bodin,et al.  Intra- and inter-rater reliability of the assessment of capacity for myoelectric control. , 2006, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[27]  A. Ashburn,et al.  The scalability of the Rivermead Motor Assessment in acute stroke patients. , 1997, Clinical rehabilitation.

[28]  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.

[29]  Clinical Utility of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory for Stroke Rehabilitation , 2010, Canadian journal of occupational therapy. Revue canadienne d'ergotherapie.

[30]  Gerwin Smit,et al.  Assessment of body-powered upper limb prostheses by able-bodied subjects, using the Box and Blocks Test and the Nine-Hole Peg Test , 2016, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[31]  N. Hogan,et al.  Assessing the Motor Status Score: A Scale for the Evaluation of Upper Limb Motor Outcomes in Patients after Stroke , 2002, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[32]  Corina Schuster,et al.  Objectively-assessed outcome measures: a translation and cross-cultural adaptation procedure applied to the Chedoke McMaster Arm and Hand Activity Inventory (CAHAI) , 2010, BMC medical research methodology.

[33]  Loredana Zollo,et al.  Literature Review on Needs of Upper Limb Prosthesis Users , 2016, Front. Neurosci..

[34]  Marjorie H. Woollacott,et al.  Motor Control: Theory and Practical Applications , 1995 .

[35]  L. Resnik,et al.  Development and evaluation of the activities measure for upper limb amputees. , 2013, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

[36]  L. Gustafsson,et al.  Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory-9 (CAHAI-9): Perceived Clinical Utility Within 14 Days of Stroke , 2011, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.

[37]  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.

[38]  Virginia Wright,et al.  Prosthetic Outcome Measures for Use With Upper Limb Amputees: A Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature, 1970 to 2009 , 2009 .

[39]  K. J. Miller,et al.  Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the upper limb subscales of the Motor Assessment Scale using a Rasch analysis model. , 2010, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[40]  D. Richman,et al.  Implantable Devices: Assessment and Perioperative Management. , 2016, Anesthesiology clinics.

[41]  Helen Y N Lindner,et al.  Test-retest reliability and rater agreements of assessment of capacity for myoelectric control version 2.0. , 2014, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[42]  J. Sancho-Bru,et al.  An introductory study of common grasps used by adults during performance of activities of daily living. , 2014, Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists.

[43]  N. Lannin.  Reliability, validity and factor structure of the upper limb subscale of the Motor Assessment Scale (UL-MAS) in adults following stroke , 2004, Disability and rehabilitation.

[44]  A. Tennant,et al.  Psychometric properties of the Rivermead Motor Assessment: its utility in stroke. , 2009, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[45]  John M. Miguelez,et al.  Ease of Activities of Daily Living with Conventional and Multigrip Myoelectric Hands , 2015 .

[46]  I. W. Molenaar,et al.  Measuring upper limb capacity in patients after stroke: reliability and validity of the stroke upper limb capacity scale. , 2011, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[47]  Linda Resnik,et al.  Reliability and Validity of Outcome Measures for Upper Limb Amputation , 2012 .

[48]  A. Warden-Flood,et al.  The sensitivity of three commonly used outcome measures to detect change amongst patients receiving inpatient rehabilitation following stroke , 2006, Clinical rehabilitation.

[49]  Donna J. Cech.  Chapter 14 – Prehension , 2012 .

[50]  E. Biddiss,et al.  Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: A survey of the last 25 years , 2007, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[51]  Ching-Lin Hsieh,et al.  Responsiveness of two upper extremity function instruments for stroke inpatients receiving rehabilitation , 2002, Clinical rehabilitation.

[52]  A. Eliasson,et al.  Influence of standardized activities on validity of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control. , 2013, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[53]  Li-ling Chuang,et al.  Responsiveness and validity of three dexterous function measures in stroke rehabilitation. , 2010, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[54]  Helen Y N Lindner,et al.  Assessment of capacity for myoelectric control: evaluation of construct and rating scale. , 2009, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[55]  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.

[56]  P. Stratford,et al.  Development of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory: Theoretical Constructs, Item Generation, and Selection , 2004, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.

[57]  Helen Y N Lindner,et al.  Upper Limb Prosthetic Outcome Measures: Review and Content Comparison Based on International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health , 2010, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[58]  Rajesh Verma,et al.  Estimating the Minimal Clinically Important Difference of an Upper Extremity Recovery Measure in Subacute Stroke Patients , 2011, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.

[59]  Ching-yi Wu,et al.  Rasch Validation of the Streamlined Wolf Motor Function Test in People With Chronic Stroke and Subacute Stroke , 2012, Physical Therapy.

[60]  Christina Rock Gambrell.  Overuse Syndrome and the Unilateral Upper Limb Amputee: Consequences and Prevention , 2008 .

[61]  David L Streiner,et al.  Test-retest reliability, validity, and sensitivity of the Chedoke arm and hand activity inventory: a new measure of upper-limb function for survivors of stroke. , 2005, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[62]  Chao Lu,et al.  Retrospective study , 2016, Medicine.

[63]  P. Stratford,et al.  Comparing 2 versions of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory with the Action Research Arm Test. , 2006, Physical therapy.

[64]  Ryanne J. M. Lemmens,et al.  Valid and reliable instruments for arm-hand assessment at ICF activity level in persons with hemiplegia: a systematic review , 2012, BMC Neurology.

[65]  Catherine E Lang,et al.  Relationships and Responsiveness of Six Upper Extremity Function Tests During the First Six Months of Recovery After Stroke , 2009, Journal of neurologic physical therapy : JNPT.

[66]  J. H. van der Lee,et al.  The responsiveness of the Action Research Arm test and the Fugl-Meyer Assessment scale in chronic stroke patients. , 2001, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[67]  M. Popovic,et al.  The Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength Sensibility and Prehension: reliability and validity. , 2012, Journal of neurotrauma.

[68]  Donna J. Cech,et al.  Functional movement development : across the life span , 1995 .

[69]  Ching-Lin Shih,et al.  Is the long form of the Fugl-Meyer motor scale more responsive than the short form in patients with stroke? , 2014, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

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

[71]  Assessment of the upper limb in acute stroke: the validity of hierarchal scoring for the Motor Assessment Scale. , 2009, Australian occupational therapy journal.

[72]  Jason M Wilken,et al.  Range of Motion Requirements for Upper-Limb Activities of Daily Living. , 2015, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

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

[74]  A. Kjendahl,et al.  Dimensionality and scalability of the Motor Assessment Scale (MAS) , 2006, Disability and rehabilitation.