Objective: To validate results obtained from using the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) at tables of a common height for persons who have experienced a stroke.
Design: Each subject was tested three times with the ARAT while sitting at three different tables: a table specially designed for the test and two generally available tables similar in height to the standard table. The patients were randomly and equally assigned to three different raters and to three different tables in accordance with a counterbalanced design. All evaluations were completed within a two-day period.
Subjects: Sixty-one patients who had had only one stroke (mean age 63.3 years; median time since stroke onset 81 days; mean ARAT score administered at the standard table 33.8) participated in this study.
Results: The intraclass correlation coef”cient (ICC) for the total scores obtained using the ARAT at the different tables was 0.99, indicating very high agreement. The ICCs were also very high in each of the subscales.
Conclusion: The results of this study support the use of the ARAT at ordinary tables roughly similar in height to that specially designed for use with the ARAT.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, Wagenaar RC. Therapy impact on functional recovery in stroke rehabilitation. Physiotherapy1999; 85: 377–391.
2.
De Weerdt WJG, Harrison MA. Measuring recovery of arm–hand function in stroke patients: a comparison of the Brunnstrom-Fugl-Meyer test and the Action Research Arm Test. Physiother Can1985; 37: 65–70.
3.
Lyle RC. A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. J Rehabil Res Dev1981; 4: 483–492.
4.
Wagenaar RC, Meijer OG, van Wieringen PCW et al. The functional recovery of stroke: a comparison between neuro-developmental treatment and the Brunnstrom method. Scand J Rehabil Med1990; 22: 1–8.
5.
Hsieh CL, Hsueh IP, Chiang FM, Lin PH. Inter-rater reliability and validity of the Action Research Arm Test in stroke patients. Age Ageing1998; 27: 107–113.
6.
van der Lee JH, De Groot V, Beckerman H, Wagenaar RC, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. The intra and interrater reliability of the Action Research Arm Test: a practical test of upper extremity function in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2001; 82: 14–19.
7.
Broeks JG, Lankhorst GJ, Rumping K, Prevo AJ. The long-term outcome of arm function after stroke: results of a follow-up study. Disabil Rehabil1999; 21: 357–364.
8.
Feys HM, De Weerdt WJ, Selz BE et al. Effect of a therapeutic intervention for the hemiplegic upper limb in the acute phase after stroke: a single-blind, randomized, controlled multicenter trial. Stroke1998; 29: 785–792.
9.
van der Lee JH, Wagenaar RC, Lankhorst GJ, Vogelaar TW, Deville WL, Bouter LM. Forced use of the upper extremity in chronic stroke patients: results from a single-blind randomized clinical trial. Stroke1999; 30: 2369–2375.
10.
Carroll D. A quantitative test of upper extremity function. J Chronic Dis1965; 18: 479–491.
Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The poststroke hemiplegic patient, I: a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med1975; 7: 13–31.
13.
Ottenbacher K, Stull GA. The analysis and interpretation of medical comparison studies in rehabilitation research. Am J Phys Med Rehabil1993; 72: 266–271.
14.
Richman J, Makrides L, Prince B. Research methodology and applied statistics. Part 3: measurement procedures in research. Physiother Can1980; 32: 253–257.
15.
Kwakkel G, Wagenaar RC, Twisk JW, Lankhorst GJ, Koetsier JC. Intensity of leg and arm training after primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke: a randomised trial. Lancet1999; 354: 191–196.
16.
Powell J, Pandyan AD, Granat M, Cameron M, Stott DJ. Electrical stimulation of wrist extensors in poststroke hemiplegia. Stroke1999; 30: 1384–1389.
17.
Armstrong BK, White E.Saracci R.Principles of exposure measurement in epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
