To critically appraise the psychometric properties of light touch-pressure somatosensory assessments to provide guidance for tool selection for research or clinical purposes.
Data sources
MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycInfo were searched for research indexed from January 1990-November 2022. English language and human subject filters were applied. “Somatosensation”, “psychometric property”, and “nervous system-based health condition” search terms were combined. Grey literature and manual searches were conducted to ensure thoroughness.
Review methods
The reliability, construct validity, and/or measurement error of light touch-pressure assessments was reviewed in adult populations with neurological disorders. Reviewers individually extracted and managed data including patient demographics, assessment characteristics, statistical methods, and psychometric properties. Methodological quality of results was evaluated using an adapted version of the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist.
Results
Thirty-three of 1938 articles were included for review. Fifteen light touch-pressure assessments demonstrated good or excellent reliability. Further, five of those 15 assessments achieved adequate validity and one of the 15 assessments achieved adequate measurement error. Over 80% of the summarized study ratings were determined to be of low or very low quality.
Conclusion
We recommend using electrical perceptual tests, the Semmes-Weinstein Monofilaments, the Graded and Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility, and Prehension, and the Moving Touch Pressure Test given that they demonstrated good to excellent results in three psychometric properties. No other assessment achieved adequate ratings in more than two psychometric properties. This review highlights a fundamental need to develop sensory assessments that are reliable, valid, and sensitive to change.
PavlidesCMiyashitaEAsanumaH. Projection from the sensory to the motor Cortex is important in learning motor skills in the monkey. J Neurophysiol1993; 70: 733–741.
2.
VidoniEDAcerraNEDaoE,et al.Role of the primary somatosensory cortex in motor learning: an rTMS study. Neurobiol Learn Mem2010; 93: 532–539.
3.
RiddingMCMckayDRThompsonPD,et al.Changes in corticomotor representations induced by prolonged peripheral nerve stimulation in humans. Clin Neurophysiol2001; 112: 1461–1469.
4.
StefanKKuneschECohenLG,et al.Induction of plasticity in the human motor cortex by paired associative stimulation. Vol. 123, Brain. 2000.
5.
ChenJLMargolisDJStankovA,et al.Pathway-specific reorganization of projection neurons in somatosensory cortex during learning. Nat Neurosci2015; 18: 1101–1108.
6.
Al-RawiMAWHamdanFBKareem Abdul-MuttalibA. Somatosensory evoked potentials as a predictor for functional recovery of the upper limb in patients with stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis2009; 18: 262–268.
7.
VahdatSDarainyMMilnerTE,et al.Functionally specific changes in resting-state sensorimotor networks after motor learning. J Neurosci2011; 31: 16907–16915.
8.
YilmazerCBoccuniLThijsL,et al.Effectiveness of somatosensory interventions on somatosensory, motor and functional outcomes in the upper limb post-stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. NeuroRehabilitation2019; 44: 459–477.
9.
SchabrunSMHillierS. Evidence for the retraining of sensation after stroke : a systematic review. Clin Rehabil2009; 23: 27–39.
10.
TurvilleMLCahillLSMatyasTA,et al.The effectiveness of somatosensory retraining for improving sensory function in the arm following stroke: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil2019; 33: 834–846.
11.
ConnellLATysonSF. Measures of sensation in neurological conditions: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil2012; 26: 68–80.
12.
PumpaLUCahillLSCareyLM. Somatosensory assessment and treatment after stroke: an evidence-practice gap. Aust Occup Ther J2015; 62: 93–104.
13.
HarrisPATaylorRMinorBL, et al.The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform2019; 95: 103208.
14.
HarrisPATaylorRThielkeR,et al.Research electronic data capture (REDCap)-A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform2008; 42: 377–381.
15.
JaspersMEHVan HaasterechtLVan ZuijlenPPM,et al.A systematic review on the quality of measurement techniques for the assessment of burn wound depth or healing potential. Burns2019[cited 2020 Jun 23]; 45: 261–281. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2018.05.015
16.
PrinsenCACMokkinkLBBouterLM, et al.COSMIN Guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res2018; 27: 1147–1157.
17.
MokkinkLBDe VetHCWPrinsenCAC, et al.COSMIN Risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res2018; 27: 1171–1179.
18.
TerweeCBPrinsenCACChiarottoA, et al.COSMIN Methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res2018; 27: 1159–1170.
19.
KooTKLiMY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med2016; 15: 155–163.
20.
FleissJLLevinBPaikMC. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. Third Edit. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003.
21.
MillerKJ. The AsTex: clinimetric properties of a new tool for evaluating hand sensation following stroke. Clin Rehabil2009; 23: 1104–1115.
22.
BulutTAkgunUOzcanC,et al.Inter- and intra-tester reliability of sensibility testing in digital nerve repair. J Hand Surg [European Vol.]2016; 41: 621–623.
23.
WolnyTLinekPMichalskiP. Inter-rater reliability of two-point discrimination in acute stroke patients. NeuroRehabilitation2017; 41: 127–134.
24.
WolnyTLinekP. Reliability of two-point discrimination test in carpal tunnel syndrome patients. Physiother Theory Pract2019; 35: 348–354.
25.
TaylorSCAtkinsonGDixonJ,et al.Test-retest reliability of the two-point discrimination test on the sole of the foot in people with multiple sclerosis. Physiol Meas2020; 41: 11NT01.
26.
EekEEngardtM. Assessment of the perceptual threshold of touch (PTT) with high-frequency transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (hf/TENS) in elderly patients with stroke: a reliability study. Clin Rehabil2003; 17: 825–834.
27.
EllawayPHCatleyM. Reliability of the electrical perceptual threshold and Semmes-Weinstein monofilament tests of cutaneous sensibility. Spinal Cord2013; 51: 120–125.
28.
HedmanLDSullivanJE. An initial exploration of the perceptual threshold test using electrical stimulation to measure arm sensation following stroke. Clin Rehabil2011; 25: 1042–1049.
29.
KingNKKSavicGFrankelH,et al.Reliability of cutaneous electrical perceptual threshold in the assessment of sensory perception in patients with spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma2009; 26: 1061–1068.
30.
MacklinRABrookeVJCalabroFJ,et al.Discrepancies between clinical assessments of sensory function and electrical perceptual thresholds after incomplete chronic cervical spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord2016; 54: 16–23.
31.
van HedelHJAKumruHRöhrichF,et al.Changes in electrical perception threshold within the first 6 months after traumatic spinal cord injury: a multicenter responsiveness study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2012; 26: 497–506.
32.
LiX-MYangYHouY, et al.Diagnostic accuracy of three sensory tests for diagnosis of sensory disturbances. J Reconstr Microsurg2015; 31: 67–73.
33.
DannenbaumRMMichaelsenSMDesrosiersJ,et al.Development and validation of two new sensory tests of the hand for patients with stroke. Clin Rehabil2002; 16: 630–639.
34.
WongMLTibbettJAdedolapoT,et al.The graph-DCK scale: a measure of dorsal column function after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord2019; 57: 412–418.
35.
Kalsi-RyanSBeatonDCurtA, et al.The graded redefined assessment of strength sensibility and prehension: reliability and validity. J Neurotrauma2012; 29: 905–914.
36.
SchreudersTARSellesRWVan GinnekenBTJ,et al.Sensory evaluation of the hands in patients with Charcot-Marie-tooth disease using semmes-Weinstein monofilaments. J HAND THER2008; 21: 28–35.
37.
UszynskiMPurtillHCooteS. Test-retest reliability of four sensory measures in people with multiple sclerosis. Int J Rehabil Res2015; 38: 74–80.
38.
UszynskiMPurtillHCooteS. Interrater reliability of four sensory measures in people with multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care2016; 18: 86–95.
39.
FelixERWiderström-NogaEG. Reliability and validity of quantitative sensory testing in persons with spinal cord injury and neuropathic pain. J Rehabil Res Dev2009; 46: 69–84.
40.
SudaMKawakamiMOkuyamaK, et al.Validity and reliability of the Semmes-Weinstein Monofilament test and the thumb localizing test in patients with stroke. Front Neurol2021; 11: 1–10.
41.
Jerosch-HeroldCRosénBShepstoneL. The reliability and validity of the locognosia test after injuries to peripheral nerves in the hand. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser B2006; 88: 1048–1052.
42.
EkstrandELexellJBrogardhC. Test-retest reliability of the shape/texture identification test TM in people with chronic stroke. Clin Rehabil2016; 30: 1120–1127.
43.
BrownLNMetzLMEliasziwM. Identifying reliable change in tactile temporal thresholds in multiple sclerosis: test-retest reliability. Mult Scler2006; 12: 573–577.
44.
OfekHAlperinMKnollT,et al.Disability and rehabilitation assessment of texture discrimination ability at the sole of the foot in subjects with chronic stroke compared with young and elderly subjects with no neurological deficits: a reliability and validity study. Disabil Rehabil2018; 40: 1960–1966.
45.
BergerMJReganWRSealA,et al.Reliability of the “Ten Test” for assessment of discriminative sensation in hand trauma. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg2016; 69: 1411–1416.
46.
SavicGBergströmEMKFrankelHL,et al.Inter-rater reliability of motor and sensory examinations performed according to American spinal injury association standards. Spinal Cord2007; 45: 444–451.
47.
JonssonMTollbäckAGonzalesH,et al.Inter-rater reliability of the 1992 international standards for neurological and functional classification of incomplete spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord2000; 38: 675–679.
48.
MarinoRJJonesLKirshblumS,et al.Reliability and repeatability of the motor and sensory examination of the international standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med2008; 31: 166–170.
49.
Stolk-HornsveldFCrowJLHendriksEP,et al.The Erasmus MC modifications to the (revised) Nottingham sensory assessment: a reliable somatosensory assessment measure for patients with intracranial disorders. Clin Rehabil2006; 20: 160–172.
50.
LinJ-HHsuehI-PSheuC-F,et al.Psychometric properties of the sensory scale of the Fugl-Meyer assessment in stroke patients. Clin Rehabil2004; 18: 391–397.
51.
LincolnNBCrowJLJacksonJM,et al.The unreliability of sensory assessments. Clin Rehabil1991; 5: 273–282.
52.
LincolnNBJacksonJMAdamsSA. Reliability and revision of the Nottingham sensory assessment for stroke patients. Physiotherapy1998; 84: 358–365.
53.
WuC yiChuangI chingMaH ing,et al.Validity and responsiveness of the revised Nottingham sensation assessment for outcome evaluation in stroke rehabilitation. Am J Occup Ther2016; 70: 1–8.
54.
CornsweetTN. The staircase-method in psychophysics. Am J Psychol1962; 75: 485–491.
55.
TaylorMCreelmanCD. PEST : efficient estimates on probability functions. J Acoust Soc Am1967; 41: 782–787.
56.
StreinerDLNormanGRCairneyJ. Validity. In: Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to their Development and Use. 5th edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 227–252.
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.
