The Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) and its modified versions are widely used to assess upper limb (UL) function in stroke survivors. However, comprehensive evaluations of its psychometric properties are lacking.
Objective
To perform a systematic review with meta-analysis on the psychometric properties (following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments [COSMIN] taxonomy) of the WMFT and modified versions in stroke survivors.
Methods
Six databases were searched until May 2024 for studies examining at least one WMFT measurement property in stroke patients. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist and quality of evidence (QoE) with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses synthesized psychometric properties reported in at least two studies.
Results
Twenty-five studies (N = 2044) were included. Regarding the WMFT Functional Ability Scale (FAS) and TIME scales, internal consistency (alpha ≥ .88), intra-rater (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] ≥ .97) and inter-rater (ICC ≥ .92) reliability, measurement error for TIME, construct validity (strong correlations [r ≥| .64|] with Fugl-Meyer Assessment and Action Research Arm Test), and responsiveness (ES ≥ 0.48) were rated sufficiently with QoE from very low to high. Measurement error for FAS was assessed as inconsistent with moderate QoE, and cross-cultural validity was rated as indeterminate with very low QoE. Content validity was not assessed. Few studies investigated the psychometric properties of the modified versions.
Conclusions
WMFT demonstrates robust psychometric properties in assessing UL function in stroke survivors. While the WMFT-modified versions showed promising properties, further research is needed to use them. Future studies should focus on WMFT measurement error, content, and cross-cultural validity.
FeiginVLBraininMNorrvingB, et al. World Stroke Organization (WSO): global stroke fact sheet 2022. Int J Stroke. 2022;17(1):18-29. doi:10.1177/17474930211065917
2.
TsaoCWAdayAWAlmarzooqZI, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2023 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2023;147(8):e93-e621. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001123
3.
KwakkelGKollenBJvan der GrondJPrevoAJ.Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke. 2003;34(9):2181-2186. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000087172.16305.CD
4.
RaghavanP.Upper limb motor impairment after stroke. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2015;26(4):599-610. doi:10.1016/j.pmr.2015.06.008
5.
Nichols-LarsenDSClarkPCZeringueAGreenspanABlantonS.Factors influencing stroke survivors’ quality of life during subacute recovery. Stroke. 2005;36(7):1480-1484. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000170706.13595.4f
6.
BernhardtJBorschmannKBoydL, et al. Moving rehabilitation research forward: developing consensus statements for rehabilitation and recovery research. Int J Stroke. 2016;11(4):454-458. doi:10.1177/1747493016643851
7.
SantistebanLTeremetzMBletonJPBaronJCMaierMALindbergPG.Upper limb outcome measures used in stroke rehabilitation studies: a systematic literature review. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0154792. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0154792
8.
SullivanJECrownerBEKludingPM, et al. Outcome measures for individuals with stroke: process and recommendations from the American Physical Therapy Association neurology section task force. Phys Ther. 2013;93(10):1383-1396. doi:10.2522/ptj.20120492
9.
WolfSLLecrawDEBartonLAJannBB.Forced use of hemiplegic upper extremities to reverse the effect of learned nonuse among chronic stroke and head-injured patients. Exp Neurol. 1989;104(2):125-132.
10.
Alt MurphyMResteghiniCFeysPLamersI. An overview of systematic reviews on upper extremity outcome measures after stroke. BMC Neurol. 2015;15:29. doi:10.1186/s12883-015-0292-6
11.
World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). World Health Organization; 2001.
12.
DemersMLevinMF.Do activity level outcome measures commonly used in neurological practice assess upper-limb movement quality?Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31(7):623-637. doi:10.1177/1545968317714576
13.
TaubEMillerNENovackTA, et al. Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74(4):347-354.
14.
WolfSLCatlinPAEllisMArcherALMorganBPiacentinoA.Assessing Wolf Motor Function Test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke. Stroke. 2001;32(7):1635-1639. doi:10.1161/01.str.32.7.1635
15.
MorrisDMUswatteGCragoJECookEWIIITaubE.The reliability of the Wolf Motor Function Test for assessing upper extremity function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(6):750-755. doi:10.1053/apmr.2001.23183
16.
Constraint Induced Movement Therapy Research Group. Manual: Graded Wolf Motor Function Test. University of Alabama and Birmingham Veteran’s Administration Centre; 2002.
17.
BogardKWolfSZhangQThompsonPMorrisDNichols-LarsenD.Can the wolf motor function test be streamlined?Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23(5):422-428. doi:10.1177/1545968308331141
18.
HigginsJPTThomasJChandlerJ, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 Cochrane. 2023. Accessed July 4, 2024. https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
19.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
20.
GagnierJJLaiJMokkinkLBTerweeCB.COSMIN reporting guideline for studies on measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2021;30(8):2197-2218. doi:10.1007/s11136-021-02822-4
21.
TerweeCBJansmaEPRiphagenIIde VetHC.Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(8):1115-1123. doi:10.1007/s11136-009-9528-5
22.
HaddawayNRCollinsAMCoughlinDKirkS.The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0138237. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138237
23.
PiscitelliDFerrarelloFUgoliniAVerolaSPellicciariL.Measurement properties of the gross motor function classification system, gross motor function classification system-expanded & revised, manual ability classification system, and communication function classification system in cerebral palsy: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2021;63(11):1251-1261. doi:10.1111/dmcn.14910
24.
MokkinkLBTerweeCBPatrickDL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737-745. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006
25.
OuzzaniMHammadyHFedorowiczZElmagarmidA.Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
26.
MokkinkLBBoersMvan der VleutenCPM, et al. COSMIN risk of bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):293. doi:10.1186/s12874-020-01179-5
27.
MokkinkLBde VetHCWPrinsenCAC, et al. COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1171-1179. doi:10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4
28.
SennSJ.Overstating the evidence: double counting in meta-analysis and related problems. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9(1):10. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-10
29.
SchwarzerGCarpenterJRRückerG, SpringerLink. Meta-Analysis with R. 1st 2015. ed. Use R! Springer International Publishing; 2015.
30.
ParmarMKTorriVStewartL.Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med. 1998;17(24):2815-2834. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19981230)17:24<2815::aid-sim110>3.0.co;2-8
31.
ViechtbauerW.Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. J Educ Behav Stat. 2005;30(3):261-293.
32.
SterneJAEggerM.Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(10):1046-1055. doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00377-8
33.
PrinsenCACMokkinkLBBouterLM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147-1157. doi:10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3
34.
CohenJ.Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. L. Erlbaum Associates; 1988:xxi, 567 p.
35.
AdhikariSPTretriluxanaJChaiyawatP.Reliability and validity of the Nepali Wolf Motor Function Test following Cross-cultural Adaptation. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2016;14(53):3-8.
36.
AngJHManDW.The discriminative power of the Wolf Motor Function Test in assessing upper extremity functions in persons with stroke. Int J Rehabil Res. 2006;29(4):357-361. doi:10.1097/MRR.0b013e3280118e65
37.
BerardiADhramiLTofaniMValenteDSansoniJGaleotoG.Cross-cultural adaptation and validation in the Italian population of the wolf motor function test in patients with stroke. Funct Neurol. 2018;33(4):229-253.
38.
BürgeEKupperDBadan BaMLeemannBBerchtoldA.Qualities of a French version of the Wolf Motor Function Test: a multicenter study. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2013;56(4):288-299. doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2013.03.003
39.
ChenHFWuCYLinKCChenHCChenCPChenCK.Rasch validation of the streamlined Wolf Motor Function Test in people with chronic stroke and subacute stroke. Phys Ther. 2012;92(8):1017-1026. doi:10.2522/ptj.20110175
40.
ChenHFWuCYLinKC, et al. Measurement properties of streamlined wolf motor function test in patients at subacute to chronic stages after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014;28(9):839-846. doi:10.1177/1545968314526643
41.
DuffSVHeJNelsenMA, et al. Interrater reliability of the Wolf Motor Function Test-Functional Ability Scale: why it matters. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29(5):436-443. doi:10.1177/1545968314553030
42.
EdwardsDFLangCEWagnerJMBirkenmeierRDromerickAW.An evaluation of the Wolf Motor Function Test in motor trials early after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(4):660-668. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2011.10.005
43.
FritzSLBlantonSUswatteGTaubEWolfSL.Minimal detectable change scores for the Wolf Motor Function Test. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23(7):662-667. doi:10.1177/1545968309335975
44.
FuTSWuCYLinKC, et al. Psychometric comparison of the shortened Fugl-Meyer Assessment and the streamlined Wolf Motor Function Test in stroke rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26(11):1043-1047. doi:10.1177/0269215511431474
45.
HsiehYWWuCYLinKCChangYFChenCLLiuJS.Responsiveness and validity of three outcome measures of motor function after stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 2009;40(4):1386-1391. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.530584
46.
Hui-ChanC.A study on intrarater reliability and criterion validity of Wolf Motor Function Test. Chin J Rehabil Med. 2006;21(12):1084-1086.
47.
LangCEEdwardsDFBirkenmeierRLDromerickAW.Estimating minimal clinically important differences of upper-extremity measures early after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(9):1693-1700. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2008.02.022
48.
PereiraNDVieiraLPompeuFPMenezesIDSAnjosSMDOvandoAC.Translation, cultural adaptation and reliability of the brazilian version of the Graded Wolf Motor Function Test in adults with severe hemiparesis. Fisioterapia em Movimento. 2015;28(4):667-676. doi:10.1590/0103-5150.028.004.Ao03
49.
LinJHHsuMJSheuCF, et al. Psychometric comparisons of 4 measures for assessing upper-extremity function in people with stroke. Phys Ther. 2009;89(8):840-850. doi:10.2522/ptj.20080285
50.
LinKCHsiehYWWuCYChenCLJangYLiuJS.Minimal detectable change and clinically important difference of the Wolf Motor Function Test in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23(5):429-434. doi:10.1177/1545968308331144
51.
NgAKYLeungDPKFongKNK. Clinical utility of the action research arm test, the wolf motor function test and the motor activity log for hemiparetic upper extremity functions after stroke: a pilot study. Hong Kong J Occ Ther. 2008;18(1):20-27. doi:10.1016/s1569-1861(08)70009-3
52.
NijlandRvan WegenEVerbuntJvan WijkRvan KordelaarJKwakkelG.A comparison of two validated tests for upper limb function after stroke: the Wolf Motor Function Test and the Action Research Arm Test. J Rehabil Med. 2010;42(7):694-696. doi:10.2340/16501977-0560
53.
PereiraNDMichaelsenSMMenezesISOvandoACLimaRCMTeixeira-SalmelaLF.Confiabilidade da versão brasileira do Wolf Motor Function Test em adultos com hemiparesia. Brazilian J Phys Ther. 2011;15(3):257-265. doi:10.1590/s1413-35552011000300013
54.
TurtleBPorter-ArmstrongAStinsonM.The reliability of the graded Wolf Motor Function Test for stroke. British J Occ Ther. 2020;83(9):585-594. doi:10.1177/0308022620902697
55.
WhitallJSavinDNJr.Harris-LoveMWallerSM.Psychometric properties of a modified Wolf Motor Function test for people with mild and moderate upper-extremity hemiparesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(5):656-660. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2006.02.004
56.
WoodburyMVelozoCAThompsonPA, et al. Measurement structure of the Wolf Motor Function Test: implications for motor control theory. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24(9):791-801. doi:10.1177/1545968310370749
57.
WuCYFuTLinKC, et al. Assessing the streamlined Wolf Motor Function Test as an outcome measure for stroke rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25(2):194-199. doi:10.1177/1545968310381249
58.
BernhardtJHaywardKSKwakkelG, et al. Agreed definitions and a shared vision for new standards in stroke recovery research: the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable taskforce. Int J Stroke. 2017;12(5):444-450. doi:10.1177/1747493017711816
59.
WolfSLWinsteinCJMillerJP, et al. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2006;296(17):2095-2104. doi:10.1001/jama.296.17.2095
60.
BeatonDEBombardierCGuilleminFFerrazMB.Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3186-3191. doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
61.
De VetHCTerweeCBMokkinkLBKnolDL.Measurement in Medicine: A Practical Guide. Cambridge University Press; 2011.
62.
PiscitelliDBaninaMCLamTKChenJLLevinMF.Psychometric properties of a new measure of upper limb performance in post-stroke individuals: trunk-based index of performance. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2023;37(1):66-75. doi:10.1177/15459683221143462
63.
CrosbyRDKolotkinRLWilliamsGR.Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(5):395-407. doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00044-1
64.
AcquadroCConwayKHareendranAAaronsonN, European Regulatory I, Quality of Life Assessment G. Literature review of methods to translate health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in multinational clinical trials. Value Health. 2008;11(3):509-521. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00292.x
65.
KrogsgaardMRBrodersenJChristensenKB, et al. How to translate and locally adapt a PROM. Assessment of cross-cultural differential item functioning. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2021;31(5):999-1008. doi:10.1111/sms.13854
Hmaied AssadiSFeige Gross-NevoRDudkiewiczIBarelHRandD. Improvement of the upper extremity at the subacute stage poststroke: does hand dominance play a role?Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2020;34(11):1030-1037. doi:10.1177/1545968320962502
68.
HarrisJEEngJJ.Individuals with the dominant hand affected following stroke demonstrate less impairment than those with the nondominant hand affected. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2006;20(3):380-389. doi:10.1177/1545968305284528
69.
DromerickAWLangCEBirkenmeierRL, et al. Very early constraint-induced movement during stroke rehabilitation (VECTORS): a single-center RCT. Neurology. 2009;73(3):195-201. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181ab2b27
70.
TerweeCBRoordaLDKnolDLDe BoerMRDe VetHC.Linking measurement error to minimal important change of patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1062-1067. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.011
71.
PodurgielJPiscitelliDDenegarC.Challenges in applying minimal clinically important difference: a critical review. Int J Rehabil Res. 2024;47(1):10-19. doi:10.1097/MRR.0000000000000613
72.
WangYCHartDLStratfordPWMioduskiJE.Baseline dependency of minimal clinically important improvement. Phys Ther. 2011;91(5):675-688. doi:10.2522/ptj.20100229
73.
CopayAGSubachBRGlassmanSDPollyDWJr.SchulerTC.Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7(5):541-546. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008
74.
TerweeCBPrinsenCACChiarottoA, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1159-1170. doi:10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0
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.
