Objective: To compare the responsiveness of the Action Research Arm test (ARAT) and the upper extremity section of the Motor Assessment Scale (UE-MAS) in assessing the recovery of upper extremity function in stroke inpatients receiving rehabilitation.
Subjects: Forty-eight stroke inpatients.
Setting: The physical medicine and rehabilitation department of a medical centre.
Design: The patients were tested at admission and at discharge from the department.
Methods: Various indices, including effect size d, Wilcoxon test and Spearman's rho, were used to assess responsiveness. The change in score of the upper extremity subscale of the Fugl-Meyer scale was used as the external criterion.
Results: The responsiveness indices of both total scores of the ARAT and UE-MAS are generally moderate and similar (d = 0.52, Wilcoxon Z = 5.03, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.66 for the ARAT; d = 0.45, Z = 4.54, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.7 for the UE-MAS). Responsiveness indices are small to moderate and similar in each of the subscales of both instruments.
Conclusion: The results of this study support the value of the ARAT and UE-MAS for measuring recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients.
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.
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.
3.
Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales, second edition. Oxford:Oxford Medical Publications, 1995.
4.
Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change:an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Disabil1986;39:897-906.
5.
Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time:assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Disabil1987;40:171-178.
6.
Lyle RC. A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehabil Res1981;4:483-492.
7.
Carr JH, Shepherd RB, Nordholm L, Lunne D. Investigation of a new assessment scale for stroke patients. Phys Ther1985;65:175-180.
8.
Hsieh CL, Hsueh IP, Chiang FM, Lin PS. Inter-rater reliability and validity of the Action Research Arm Test in stroke patients. Age Ageing1998;27:107-113.
9.
Poole LJ, Whitney SL. Motor assessment scale for stroke patients concurrent validity and interrater reliability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1988;69:195-197.
10.
Carroll D. A quantitative test of upper extremity function. J Chronic Disabil1965;18:479-491.
11.
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.
12.
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.
13.
Parry RH, Lincoln NB, Vass CD. Effect of severity of arm impairment on response to additional physiotherapy early after stroke. Clin Rehabil1999;13:187-198.
14.
Powell J, Pandyan AD, Granat M, Cameron M, Stott DJ. Electrical stimulation of wrist extensors in poststroke hemiplegia. Stroke1999;30:1384-1389.
15.
Malouin F, Pichard L, Bonneau C, Durand A, Corriveau D. Evaluating motor recovery early after stroke:comparison of the Fugl-Meyer assessment and the motor assessment scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1994;75:1206-1212.
16.
Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient:a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med1975;7:13-31.
17.
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.
18.
Duncan PW, Propst M, Nelson SG. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment of sensorimotor recovery following cerebrovascular accident. Phys Ther1983;63:1607-1610.
19.
Sanford J, Moreland J, Swanson LR, Stratford PW, Gowland C. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment for testing motor performance in patients following stroke. Phys Ther1993;73:447-454.
20.
Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation:Barthel index. Md State Med J1965;14:61-65.
21.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences, second edition. New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
22.
van der Putten JJ, Hobart JC, Freeman JA, Thompson AJ. Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation:comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel index and the Functional Independence Measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1999;66:480-484.
23.
Liang MH, Larson MG, Cullen KE, Schwartz JA. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum1985;28:542-547.
24.
Ada L. Critically appraised papers. Aust J Physiother1999;45:243-244.
