Interrater Reliability of the Wolf Motor Function Test–Functional Ability Scale

Background. One important objective for clinical trialists in rehabilitation is determining efficacy of interventions to enhance motor behavior. In part, limitation in the precision of measurement presents a challenge. The few valid, low-cost observational tools available to assess motor behavior cannot escape the variability inherent in test administration and scoring. This is especially true when there are multiple evaluators and raters, as in the case of multisite randomized controlled trials (RCTs). One way to enhance reliability and reduce variability is to implement rigorous quality control (QC) procedures. Objective. This article describes a systematic QC process used to refine the administration and scoring procedures for the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT)–Functional Ability Scale (FAS). Methods. The QC process, a systematic focus-group collaboration, was developed and used for a phase III RCT, which enlisted multiple evaluators and an experienced WMFT-FAS rater panel. Results. After 3 staged refinements to the administration and scoring instructions, we achieved a sufficiently high interrater reliability (weighted κ = 0.8). Conclusions and Implications. A systematic focus-group process was shown to be an effective method to improve reliability of observational assessment tools for motor behavior in neurorehabilitation. A reduction in noise-related variability in performance assessments will increase power and potentially lower the number needed to treat. Improved precision of measurement can lead to more cost-effective and efficient clinical trials. Finally, we suggest that improved precision in measures of motor behavior may provide more insight into recovery mechanisms than a single measure of movement time alone.

[1]  A. G. Feldman,et al.  Arm–Trunk Coordination for Beyond-the-Reach Movements in Adults With Stroke , 2014, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[2]  D. Bonaiuti,et al.  Is CIMT a rehabilitative practice for everyone? Predictive factors and feasibility. , 2014, European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine.

[3]  Eric Wade,et al.  Spectral Analyses of Wrist Motion in Individuals Poststroke , 2014, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[4]  G. Kwakkel,et al.  Impact of time on quality of motor control of the paretic upper limb after stroke. , 2014, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[5]  Cathy C. Y. Chou,et al.  A Standardized Approach to the Fugl-Meyer Assessment and Its Implications for Clinical Trials , 2013, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[6]  Thanassis Rikakis,et al.  Adaptive Mixed Reality Rehabilitation Improves Quality of Reaching Movements More Than Traditional Reaching Therapy Following Stroke , 2013, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[7]  John W Krakauer,et al.  Improvement After Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy , 2013, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[8]  C. A. Dairaghi,et al.  Concurrent neuromechanical and functional gains following upper-extremity power training post-stroke , 2013, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[9]  Rahsaan J. Holley,et al.  Interdisciplinary Comprehensive Arm Rehabilitation Evaluation (ICARE): a randomized controlled trial protocol , 2013, BMC Neurology.

[10]  Giuseppe Granata,et al.  Focal muscle vibration in the treatment of upper limb spasticity: a pilot randomized controlled trial in patients with chronic stroke. , 2012, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[11]  J. Krakauer,et al.  Getting Neurorehabilitation Right , 2012, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[12]  B. Dobkin,et al.  Should Body Weight–Supported Treadmill Training and Robotic-Assistive Steppers for Locomotor Training Trot Back to the Starting Gate? , 2012, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[13]  Theresa E. McGuirk,et al.  Differential Effects of Power Training Versus Functional Task Practice on Compensation and Restoration of Arm Function After Stroke , 2012, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[14]  Bruce H Dobkin,et al.  The Promise of mHealth , 2011, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[15]  Bruce H Dobkin,et al.  Body-weight-supported treadmill rehabilitation after stroke. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  Paul A Thompson,et al.  Measurement Structure of the Wolf Motor Function Test: Implications for Motor Control Theory , 2010, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

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

[18]  Miao-Ju Hsu,et al.  Psychometric Comparisons of 4 Measures for Assessing Upper-Extremity Function in People With Stroke , 2009, Physical Therapy.

[19]  B. Prilutsky,et al.  Gains in Upper Extremity Function After Stroke via Recovery or Compensation: Potential Differential Effects on Amount of Real-World Limb Use , 2009, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.

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

[21]  Y. Jang,et al.  Minimal Detectable Change and Clinically Important Difference of the Wolf Motor Function Test in Stroke Patients , 2009, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[22]  Bruce H Dobkin,et al.  Progressive Staging of Pilot Studies to Improve Phase III Trials for Motor Interventions , 2009, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[23]  Carolee J Winstein,et al.  Design for the Everest Randomized Trial of Cortical Stimulation and Rehabilitation for Arm Function Following Stroke , 2009, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[24]  B. Dobkin,et al.  The Evolution of Walking-Related Outcomes Over the First 12 Weeks of Rehabilitation for Incomplete Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: The Multicenter Randomized Spinal Cord Injury Locomotor Trial , 2007, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[25]  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.

[26]  S. Wolf,et al.  The Effects of Constraint-Induced Therapy on Precision Grip: A Preliminary Study , 2004, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[27]  M. Levin,et al.  Compensation for distal impairments of grasping in adults with hemiparesis , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[29]  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.

[30]  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.

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

[32]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. , 1968 .

[33]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[34]  D. Adkins,et al.  Poststroke treatment: lost in translation. , 2009, Stroke.