Occupational therapists working within acute neurosciences assume a primary role in the identification of upper-limb impairments, and to achieve this, they require measurement tools, which are sensitive to small changes in patient function. The purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of a newly developed upper-limb assessment tool (ULAT) for acute neurological patients.
Methods
Using a prospective study design, 30 patients with a confirmed neurological diagnosis completed the ULAT. Nonparametric statistics were then completed to examine the ULAT's reliability.
Results
The ULAT exhibited strong intra- and inter-rater reliability and acceptable internal consistency across patients with various neurological diagnoses.
Conclusion
Evidence of the ULAT's robust reliability supports its ongoing refinement and potential use in acute care neurological settings by occupational therapists.
BogousslavskyJ., & CastilloV. (1997). What is the place of clinical assessment in acute stroke management? In BogousslavskyJ. (Ed.), Acute stroke treatment (pp. 15–32) London, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BohannonR. W., & AndrewsA. W. (1987). Interrater reliability of hand held dynamometry.Physical Therapy, 67, 931–933.
3.
BohannonR. W., & SmithM. B. (1987). Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity.Physical Therapy, 67, 206–207.
4.
CarrJ. H., ShephardR. B., NordholmL., & LynneD. (1985). Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients.Physical Therapy, 65, 175–179.
5.
CorbenL. A., DownieS., & FieldingL. (2011). Development and trial of an upper-limb assessment for the acute neurological patient.British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74, 95–105.
6.
CroarkinE., DanoffJ., & BarnesC. (2004). Evidence-based rating of upper-extremity motor function tests used for people following a stroke.Physical Therapy, 84, 62–74.
7.
CroweJ., HarmerD., & SharpeD. (1996). Reliability of the Chedoke-McMaster Disability Inventory in acquired brain injury.Physiotherapy Canada, 48, 25.
8.
DemeurisseG., DemolO., & RobayeE. (1980). Motor evaluation in vascular hemiplegia.European Neurology, 19, 382–389.
9.
DePoyE., & GitlinL. N. (1994). Introduction to research: multiple strategies for health and human services.St Louis, Missouri: Mosby.
10.
FongK., NgB., ChanD., ChanE., MaD., AuB. (2004). Development of the Hong Kong version of the Function Test for the Hemiplegic Upper Extremity (FTHUE-HK).Hong Kong Journal of Occupational Therapy, 14, 21–29.
11.
GowlandC., StratfordP., WardM., MorelandJ., TorresinW., Van HullenaarS. (1993). Measuring physical impairment and disability with the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment.Stroke, 24, 58–63.
12.
LincolnN. B., & LeadbitterD. (1979). Assessment of motor function in stroke patients.Physiotherapy, 65, 48–51.
13.
MathiowetzV., WeberK., VollaqndG., & KashmanN. (1984). Reliability and validity of grip and pinch strength evaluations.Journal of Hand Surgery, 9A, 222–226.
14.
MehrholzJ., WagnerK., MeissnerD., GrundmannK., ZangeC., KochR. (2005). Reliability of the Modified Tardieu Scale and the Modified Ashworth Scale in adult patients with severe brain injury: a comparison study.Clinical Rehabilitation, 19, 751–759.
15.
MerliniL., MazzoneE. S., SolariA., & MorandiL. (2002). Reliability of dynamometry in spino muscular atrophy.Muscle & Nerve, 26, 64–70.
16.
MorrisD., UswatteG., CragoJ., CookE., & TaubE. (2001). The reliability of the Wolf Motor Function Test for assessing upper extremity function after stroke.Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 82, 750–755.
17.
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). (2007a). Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research [document online]. NHMRC publication. Retrieved February 15, 2009, from http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synposes/r39syn.htm.
18.
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). (2007b). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research [document online]. NHMRC publication. Retrieved February 15, 2009, from http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synposes/e72syn.htm.
19.
NijlandR., van WegenE., VerbuntJ., van WijkR., van KordelaarJ., & KwakkelG. (2010). A comparison of two validated tests for upper limb function after stroke: The Wolf Motor Function Test and the Action Research Arm Test.Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 42, 694–696.
20.
PlatzT., PinkowskiC., van WijckF., KimI. H., di BellaP., & JohnsonG. (2005). 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.Clinical Rehabilitation, 19, 404–411.
21.
PolgarS., & ThomasS. A. (2008). Introduction to research in the health sciences (5th ed.). Sydney, New South Wales: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier.
22.
RudmanD., & HannahS. (1998). An instrument evaluation framework: description and application to assessments of hand function.Journal of Hand Therapy, 11, 266–277.
23.
SkeneL. (2004). Law and medical practice: Rights, duties, claims and defences (2nd ed.). Sydney, New South Wales: Lexis Nexis Butterworths.
24.
StapletonT., & GalvinM. (2005). Current practice trends among occupational therapists working in stroke care—results of postal survey.Irish Journal of Occupational Therapy, 34, 3–9.
25.
StapletonT., & McBreartyC. (2009). Use of standardised assessments and outcome measures among a sample of Irish occupational therapists working with adults with physical disabilities.British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72, 55–64.
26.
Trombly LathamC. A., & RadomskiM. V. (2007). Occupational therapy for physical dysfunction (6th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
27.
UnsworthC., & DuncombeD. (2004). Australian Therapy Outcome Measures for Occupational Therapy (OT-AusTOMs).Melbourne, Victoria: Latrobe University.
28.
Van der LeeJ. H., BeckermanH., LankhorstG. J., & BouterL. M. (2001). The responsiveness of the Action Research Arm test and the Fugl-Meyer Assessment scale in chronic stroke patients.Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 33, 110–113.
29.
WadeD. (1992). Measurement in neurological rehabilitation.Oxford, UK: Oxford Medical.
30.
WhitallJ., SavinD., Harris-LoveM., & WallerS. (2006). Psychometric properties of a modified Wolf Motor Function Test for people with mild and moderate upper extremity hemiparesis.Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 82, 750–755.
31.
WolfS. L., CatlinP. A., EllisM., ArcherA. L., MorganB., & PiacentinoA. (2001). Assessing Wolf Motor Function Test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke.Stroke, 32, 1635–1639.
32.
World Health Organisation. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organisation.
33.
YozbatiranN., Der-YerghiaianL., & CramerS. C. (2008). A standardized approach to performing the action research arm test.Neurorehabilitation & Neural Repair, 22, 78–90.
