Objective: With increasing pressure for accountability in the Australian health service, clinicians require reliable and valid measurement tools for assessing the physical status of stroke patients in the acute setting prior to entering rehabilitation, so that predictions can be made about the potential length of stay in rehabilitation and level of outcome. In response to the lack of suitable measures of physical disability for acute stroke patients, the Mobility Scale for Acute Stroke Patients was developed. The aim of this paper was to investigate the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of the scale.
Method: Five tasks, which incorporate functional movements from lying to walking, were assessed using a six-point scale based on the level of assis tance. Stroke patients were filmed while being assessed by an experienced examiner using the Mobility Scale. Twenty-one clinicians viewed 10 video- taped performances of each activity.
Results: The intra-rater reliability from the viewing sessions one month apart was excellent for 92% of the judgements (weighted kappa >0.75). The weighted kappa values for inter-rater reliability were all in the excellent agreement range above 0.75.
Conclusion: The results of this study showed that the Mobility Scale has a high degree of reliability using this testing procedure. The reliability of the Mobility Scale in the clinical setting and its validity in predicting length of stay and outcome are being investigated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Christie D.Stroke in Melbourne: an epidemiological study. Stroke1981; 12: 467-69.
2.
Shah S., Bain C.Admissions, patterns of utilization and disposition of cases of acute stroke in Brisbane hospitals. Med J Aust1989; 150: 56-60.
3.
Roach K., Van Dillen L.Development of an Acute Care Index of Functional status for patients with neurological impairment. Phys Ther1988; 68: 1102-108.
4.
Mahoney F., Barthel D.Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. M StateMed J1965; 14: 61-65.
5.
Hamilton B., Granger C., Sherwin F., Zielezny M., Tashman J.A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer M ed. Rehabilitation outcomes analysis and measurement. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brooks Publishing, 1987: 137-47.
6.
Carr J., Shepherd R., Nordholm L., Lynne D.Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Phys Ther1985; 65: 175-80.
7.
Lincoln N., Leadbitter D.Assessment of motor function in stroke patients. Physiotherapy1979; 65: 48-51.
8.
Harvey R., Jellinek H.Functional performance assessment: a program approach. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1981; 62: 456-60.
9.
Gowland C., Stratford O., Ward M. et al. Measuring physical impairment and disability with the Chedoke McMaster stroke assessment. Stroke1993; 24: 58-63.
10.
Bohannon R. , Kloter K., Cooper J.Recovery and outcome of patients with stroke treated in an acute care hospital. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis1991; 1: 190-95.
11.
Kent P., Hill K., Bernhardt J.Functional prediction post stroke. Aust J Physiother1993; 39: 281-89.
12.
Wood-Dauphinee S., Berg K., Daley K.Monitoring status and evaluating outcomes: an overview of rating scales for use with patients who have sustained a stroke . Top Geriatr Rehabil1994; 10: 22-41.
13.
Loewen S., Anderson B.Reliability of the modified motor assessment scale and the Barthel Index. Phys Ther1988; 68: 1077-81.
14.
Polgar S., Thomas S.Introduction to research in the health sciences, second edition. Melbourne: Churchill Livingstone , 1991.
15.
Runyon R., Haber A.Fundamentals of behavioural statistics. London: Addison-Wesley, 1976.
16.
Cohen J.Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull1968; 70: 213-20.
17.
Fleiss J.Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York : John Wiley, 1981.
