Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective:

To investigate the predictive validity, responsiveness, and minimal clinically important difference of arm accelerometer in real-world activity of patients with chronic stroke.

Design:

Validation and psychometric study.

Setting:

Three medical centers.

Subjects:

Patients with chronic stroke came from three separated randomized controlled trials.

Interventions:

Patients with stroke received upper extremity rehabilitation programs for four weeks.

Main measures:

Real-world arm movements were measured by an arm accelerometer and three clinical measurement tools—the Motor Activity Log, Stroke Impact Scale, and Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living—administered before and after treatment.

Results:

A total of 82 subjects were recruited in the study (mean age: 55.32 years; mean score of Fugl-Meyer Assessment: 39.91). Correlations between the arm accelerometer and three clinical measurement tools were fair to moderate (Pearson’s r = 0.47, 0.42, and 0.34, respectively). The correlation between the arm accelerometer and the quality of use of Motor Activity Log subscale was moderate to good (Pearson’s r = 0.57). The responsiveness of the arm accelerometer from pretreatment to posttreatment was medium (standardized response mean = 0.72). The minimal clinically important difference range for the arm accelerometer was 547–751 mean counts.

Conclusion:

The arm accelerometer demonstrated acceptable predictive validity and responsiveness in patients with chronic stroke. The affected arm activity measured by the arm accelerometer was sensitive to change. The change score of a patient with chronic stroke on the arm accelerometer should reach 574–751 mean counts to be regarded as a minimal clinically important difference.

Keywords

Accelerometer psychometrics rehabilitation stroke arm

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Broeks

Lankhorst

Rumping

et al . The long-term outcome of arm function after stroke: results of a follow-up study. Disabil Rehabil 1999; 21: 357–364.

Urbin

Waddell

Lang

CE.

Acceleration metrics are responsive to change in upper extremity function of stroke survivors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015; 96: 854–861.

Taub

Crago

Burgio

et al . An operant approach to rehabilitation medicine: overcoming learned nonuse by shaping. J Exp Anal Behav 1994; 61: 281–293.

Michielsen

Selles

Stam

et al . Quantifying nonuse in chronic stroke patients: a study into paretic, nonparetic, and bimanual upper-limb use in daily life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 93: 1975–1981.

Lang

Wagner

Edwards

et al . Upper extremity use in people with hemiparesis in the first few weeks after stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther 2007; 31: 56–63.

Green

LB.

Assessment of habitual physical activity and paretic arm mobility among stroke survivors by accelerometry. Top Stroke Rehabil 2007; 14: 9–21.

De Niet

Bussmann

Ribbers

et al . The stroke upper-limb activity monitor: its sensitivity to measure hemiplegic upper-limb activity during daily life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88: 1121–1126.

Taub

Uswatte

Bowman

et al . Constraint-induced movement therapy combined with conventional neurorehabilitation techniques in chronic stroke, patients with plegic hands: a case series. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94: 86–94.

Liao

Hsieh

et al . Effects of robot-assisted upper limb rehabilitation on daily function and real-world arm activity in patients with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2012; 26: 111–120.

10.

Fini

Holland

Keating

et al . How is physical activity monitored in people following stroke? Disabil Rehabil 2015; 37: 1717–1731.

11.

Uswatte

Taub

Morris

et al . Reliability and validity of the upper-extremity Motor Activity Log-14 for measuring real-world arm use. Stroke 2005; 36: 2493–2496.

12.

Gebruers

Truijen

Engelborghs

et al . Prediction of upper limb recovery, general disability, and rehabilitation status by activity measurements assessed by accelerometers or the Fugl-Meyer score in acute stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2014; 93: 245–252.

13.

Guyatt

Deyo

Charlson

et al . Responsiveness and validity in health-status measurement—a clarification. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 403–408.

14.

Lang

Edwards

Birkenmeier

et al . Estimating minimal clinically important differences of upper-extremity measures early after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 89: 1693–1700.

15.

Lee

Lin

et al . Combining afferent stimulation and mirror therapy for improving muscular, sensorimotor, and daily functions after chronic stroke: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2015; 94: 859–868.

16.

Hsieh

Lin

Horng

et al . Sequential combination of robot-assisted therapy and constraint-induced therapy in stroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial. J Neurol 2014; 261: 1037–1045.

17.

Yang

Chen

et al . Unilateral versus bilateral robot-assisted rehabilitation on arm-trunk control and functions post stroke: a randomized controlled trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2013; 10: 35.

18.

Uswatte

Giuliani

Winstein

et al . Validity of accelerometry for monitoring real-world arm activity in patients with subacute stroke: evidence from the extremity constraint-induced therapy evaluation trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 87: 1340–1345.

19.

Taub

McCulloch

Uswatte

et al . Motor Activity Log (MAL) manual. UAB Training for CI Therapy. 2011, pp.1–18, https://www.uab.edu/citherapy/images/pdf_files/CIT_Training_MAL_manual.pdf

20.

Khan

Oesch

Validity and responsiveness of the German version of the Motor Activity Log for the assessment of self-perceived arm use in hemiplegia after stroke. NeuroRehabilitation 2013; 33: 413–421.

21.

Carod-Artal

Coral

Trizotto

et al . The stroke impact scale 3.0: evaluation of acceptability, reliability, and validity of the Brazilian version. Stroke 2008; 39: 2477–2484.

22.

Lincoln

Gladman

JR.

The Extended Activities of Daily Living scale: a further validation. Disabil Rehabil 1992; 14: 41–43.

23.

Portney

Watkins

MP.

Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2014.

24.

Cohen

Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.

25.

Norman

Sloan

Wyrwich

KW.

Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003; 41: 582–592.

26.

Chen

Lin

Liing

et al . Kinematic measures of Arm-trunk movements during unilateral and bilateral reaching predict clinically important change in perceived arm use in daily activities after intensive stroke rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2015; 12: 84.

27.

Hsieh

Lin

et al . Responsiveness and validity of three outcome measures of motor function after stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 2009; 40: 1386–1391.

28.

Van der Lee

Beckerman

Knol

et al . Clinimetric properties of the motor activity log for the assessment of arm use in hemiparetic patients. Stroke 2004; 35: 1410–1414.

29.

Wang

Lin

et al . Validity, responsiveness, and clinically important difference of the ABILHAND questionnaire in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011; 92: 1086–1091.

30.

Revicki

Hays

Cella

et al . Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 102–109.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.16 MB

A study of predictive validity,responsiveness,and minimal clinically important difference of arm accelerometer in real-world activity of patients with chronic stroke

Abstract

Objective:

Design:

Setting:

Subjects:

Interventions:

Main measures:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material