The Italian version of the Erasmus MC modifications to the Nottingham Sensory Assessment for patients following acquired brain injury: Translation and reliability study

Abstract

Objective

To develop the Italian version of the Erasmus MC modifications to the Nottingham Sensory Assessment and to investigate its internal consistency, intra- and inter-rater reliability.

Design

Prospective cohort study.

Setting

Rehabilitation department.

Subjects

A total of 34 patients with acquired brain injury.

Main measure

The translation and cultural adaptation process was completed, and the testing procedures of the Italian version of the Erasmus MC modifications to the Nottingham Sensory Assessment were standardized. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha index; assessment of intra- and inter-rater reliability was carried out using weighted kappa coefficient.

Results

The internal consistency of the tactile sensations and the proprioception items of the Italian version of the Erasmus MC modifications to the Nottingham Sensory Assessment were generally acceptable to excellent with a range of Cronbach's alpha between 0.73 and 0.97. The intra-rater reliability of the tactile sensations and the proprioception items of the Italian version of the Erasmus MC modifications to the Nottingham Sensory Assessment were generally good to excellent with a range of weighted kappa coefficients between 0.47 and 1.00. Likewise, the inter-rater reliabilities of these items were predominantly good to excellent with a range of weighted kappa coefficients between 0.42 and 0.92.

Conclusion

The Italian version of the Erasmus MC modifications to the Nottingham Sensory Assessment is a reliable screening tool to evaluate primary somatosensory impairments in patients with acquired brain injury. Further research is necessary to consolidate these results and establish the validity and responsiveness of the Italian version of the Erasmus MC modifications to the Nottingham Sensory Assessment.

Keywords

Acquired brain injury stroke sensory assessment outcome measure somatosensory impairment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kessner

Schlemm

Cheng

, et al. Somatosensory deficits after ischemic stroke. Stroke 2019; 50: 1116–1123.

Tyson

Hanley

Chillala

, et al. Sensory loss in hospital-admitted people with stroke: characteristics, associated factors, and relationship with function. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2008; 22: 166–172.

Zandvliet

Kwakkel

Nijland

RHM

, et al.

Is recovery of somatosensory impairment conditional for upper-limb motor recovery early after stroke?

Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2020; 34: 403–416.

Lin

S-I

Hsu

L-J

Wang

H-C

. Effects of ankle proprioceptive interference on locomotion after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 93: 1027–1033.

Shaffer

Harrison

. Aging of the somatosensory system: a translational perspective. Phys Ther 2007; 87: 193–207.

Blennerhassett

Matyas

Carey

. Impaired discrimination of surface friction contributes to pinch grip deficit after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007; 21: 263–272.

Desrosiers

Rochette

Noreau

, et al. Long-term changes in participation after stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil 2006; 13: 86–96.

Winward

Halligan

Wade

. Current practice and clinical relevance of somatosensory assessment after stroke. Clin Rehabil 1999; 13: 48–55.

Lyden

Hantson

. Assessment scales for the evaluation of stroke patients. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 1998; 7: 113–127.

10.

Lincoln

Crow

Jackson

, et al. The unreliability of sensory assessments. Clin Rehabil 1991; 5: 273–282.

11.

Lincoln

Jackson

Adams

. Reliability and revision of the Nottingham Sensory Assessment for stroke patients. Physiotherapy 1998; 84: 358–365.

12.

Stolk-Hornsveld

Crow

Hendriks

, et al. The Erasmus MC modifications to the (revised) Nottingham Sensory Assessment: a reliable somatosensory assessment measure for patients with intracranial disorders. Clin Rehabil 2006; 20: 160–172.

13.

Connell

Tyson

. Measures of sensation in neurological conditions: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil 2012; 26: 68–80.

14.

Cohen

Korevaar

Altman

, et al. STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e012799.

15.

Sousa

Rojjanasrirat

. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross–cultural health care research: a clear and user–friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract 2011; 17: 268–274.

16.

Baeza

FLC

Caldieraro

MAK

Pinheiro

, et al. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation into Brazilian Portuguese of the Measure of Parental Style (MOPS)--a self-reported scale--according to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) recommendations. Rev Bras Psiquiatr 2010; 32: 159–163.

17.

Wild

Grove

Martin

, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health 2005; 8: 94–104.

18.

Brorson

Hróbjartsson

. Training improves agreement among doctors using the Neer system for proximal humeral fractures in a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 7–16.

19.

Galeoto

Turriziani

Berardi

, et al. Levels of cognitive functioning assessment scale: Italian cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Ann Ig 2020; 32: 16–26.

20.

Willmes

Poeck

Weniger

, et al.

Facet theory applied to the construction and validation of the Aachen Aphasia Test

Brain Lang 1983; 18: 259–276.

21.

DeVellis

. Scale development: theory and applications. (2nd ed., Vol. 26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

22.

Cohen

. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 1968; 70: 213–220.

23.

Fleiss

Cohen

. The equivalence of weighted Kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas 1973; 33: 613–619.

24.

Fleiss

. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1981.

25.

Sim

Reid

. Statistical inference by confidence intervals: issues of interpretation and utilization. Phys Ther 1999; 79: 186–195.

26.

Cicchetti

. Testing the normal approximation and minimal sample size requirements of weighted kappa when the number of categories is large. Appl Psychol Meas 1981; 5: 101–104.

27.

Kandel

Schwartz

Jessel

, et al. Principles of neural science. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing, 2012.

28.

Villepinte

Catella

Martin

, et al. Validation of French upper limb Erasmus modified Nottingham Sensory Assessment in stroke. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2019; 62: 35–42.

29.

Lima

DHF

Queiroz

De Salvo

, et al. Brazilian Version of the Nottingham Sensory Assessment: validity, agreement and reliability. Rev Bras Fisioter 2010; 14: 166–174.

30.

Uszynski

Purtill

Coote

. Interrater reliability of four sensory measures in people with multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care 2016; 18: 86–95.

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

0.05 MB

4.06 MB