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.

OBJECTIVES To estimate the test-retest reliability and validity of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory (CAHAI) and to test whether the CAHAI was more sensitive to change in upper-limb function than the Impairment Inventory of the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment (CMSA) and the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). DESIGN Construct validation process. SETTING Inpatient/outpatient rehabilitation facilities. PARTICIPANTS Stratified sample of 39 survivors of stroke: 24 early (mean age, 71.4 y; mean days poststroke, 27.3) and 15 chronic (mean age, 64.0 y; mean days poststroke, 101.7). INTERVENTION Regular therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), receiver operating characteristic (ROC), standard error of measurement, and correlation coefficients. RESULTS High interrater reliability was established with an ICC of .98 (95% confidence interval [CI], .96-.99). The minimal detectable change score was 6.3 CAHAI points. Higher correlations were obtained between the CAHAI and the ARAT and CMSA scores compared with the CMSA shoulder pain scores (1-sided, P=.001). Areas under the ROC curves were as follows: CAHAI, .95 (95% CI, 0.87-1.00); CMSA, .76 (95% CI, .61-.92); and ARAT, .88 (95% CI, 0.76-1.00). CONCLUSIONS High interrater reliability and convergent and discriminant cross-sectional validity were established for the CAHAI. The CAHAI is more sensitive to clinically important change than the ARAT.

[1]  R Langton-Hewer,et al.  The hemiplegic arm after stroke: measurement and recovery. , 1983, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[2]  G. Müller,et al.  [Movement therapy in hemiplegia]. , 1977, Beitrage zur Orthopadie und Traumatologie.

[3]  R. Linn Educational measurement, 3rd ed. , 1989 .

[4]  C. Gowland,et al.  Recovery of motor function following stroke: Profile and predictors , 1982 .

[5]  R. Parry Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment — Development, Validation and Administration Manual , 1996 .

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

[7]  C. Flick 4. Stroke outcome and psychosocial consequences , 1999 .

[8]  R L Hewer,et al.  Arm function after stroke. An evaluation of grip strength as a measure of recovery and a prognostic indicator. , 1989, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[9]  C. Goldsmith,et al.  Use of the standard error as a reliability index of interest: an applied example using elbow flexor strength data. , 1997, Physical therapy.

[10]  M. Liang Longitudinal Construct Validity: Establishment of Clinical Meaning in Patient Evaluative Instruments , 2000, Medical care.

[11]  W De Weerdt,et al.  Predicting arm recovery following stroke: value of site of lesion , 2000, Acta neurologica Scandinavica.

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

[13]  P. Katrak,et al.  Predicting upper limb recovery after stroke: the place of early shoulder and hand movement. , 1998, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[14]  J. Hanley,et al.  A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. , 1983, Radiology.

[15]  D Rudman,et al.  An instrument evaluation framework: description and application to assessments of hand function. , 1998, Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists.

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

[17]  P. Stratford Getting More from the Literature: Estimating the Standard Error of Measurement from Reliability Studies , 2004 .

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

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

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

[21]  D L Riddle,et al.  Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. , 1996, Physical therapy.

[22]  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.

[23]  M. Liang,et al.  Comparisons of Five Health Status Instruments for Orthopedic Evaluation , 1990, Medical care.

[24]  F. E. Lightbody,et al.  Long-term follow-up of the poststroke patient. , 1972, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[25]  H. Hislop,et al.  Movement therapy in hemiplegia : a neurophysiological approach , 1970 .

[26]  J. H. van der Lee,et al.  The intra- and interrater reliability of the action research arm test: a practical test of upper extremity function in patients with stroke. , 2001, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[27]  K. H. Culler,et al.  Functional Evaluation of Upper Extremity Use following Stroke: A Literature Review , 1998 .

[28]  C. Bombardier,et al.  A taxonomy for responsiveness. , 2001, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[29]  P. Stratford,et al.  Measuring Physical Impairment and Disability With the Chedoke‐McMaster Stroke Assessment , 1993, Stroke.

[30]  Xiao-Li Meng,et al.  Comparing correlated correlation coefficients , 1992 .