Background: The Action Research Arm (ARA) test is a performance test of upper extremity motor function which consists of 19 items divided into four hierarchical subtests. This multidimensionality has not yet been tested empirically.
Objective: To investigate the dimensionality of the ARA test.
Design: Cross-sectional study involving a sample of 63 chronic stroke patients.
Methods: A Mokken scale analysis was performed.
Results: The Mokken scale analysis revealed one strong unidimensional scale containing all 19 items, of which the scalability coefficient H was 0.79, while H per item ranged from 0.69 to 0.86. The reliability coefficient rho equalled 0.98, indicating a very high internal consistency. A subset of 15 out of 19 items showed an invariant hierarchical item-ordering.
Conclusion: The ARA test is a unidimensional scale. The use of subtests, as proposed in the original description of the instrument, is not supported by the present findings. The 15-item scale presented here can be used for adaptive testing, i.e. using only a selected subset of items based on prior knowledge about the patient's abilities, thus minimizing testing time.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Lyle RC. A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehabil Res1981; 4: 483–492.
2.
Carroll D. A quantitative test of upper extremity function. J Chronic Dis1965; 18: 479–491.
3.
De Weerdt W, 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.
4.
Wagenaar RC, Meijer OG, Van Wieringen PC 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: 107–114.
6.
Van der Lee JH, De Groot V, Beckerman H, Wagenaar RC, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. The intra- and inter-rater 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.
Crow JL, Lincoln NB, Nouri FM, De Weerdt W. The effectiveness of EMG biofeedback in the treatment of arm function after stroke. International Disabil Studies1989; 11: 155–160.
8.
Dekker JH, Wagenaar RC, Lankhorst GJ, De Jong BA. The painful hemiplegic shoulder: effects of intra-articular triamcinolone acetonide. Am J Phys Med Rehabil1997; 76: 43–48.
9.
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.
10.
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.
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.
Lincoln NB, Parry RH, Vass CD. Randomized, controlled trial to evaluate increased intensity of physiotherapy treatment of arm function after stroke. Stroke1999; 30: 573–579.
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.
Van der Lee JH, Wagenaar RC, Lankhorst GJ, Vogelaar TW, Devillé 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.
16.
Van der Lee JH, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. The responsiveness of the Action Research Arm test and the Fugl-Meyer Assessment scale in chronic stroke patients. J Rehabil Med2001; 33: 110–113.
17.
Guttman L. A basis for scaling quantitative data. Am Soc Rev1944; 9: 139–150.
18.
De Souza LH. The development of a scale of the Guttman type for the assessment of mobility disability in multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil1999; 13: 476–481.
19.
Deelman BG, Koning-Haanstra M, Liebrand WBG, Van de Burg W. Manual for the SAN test [in Dutch]. Lisse: Swets en Zeitlinger, 1987.
20.
Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. ‘Mini-mental state’. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res1975; 12: 189–198.
21.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet1986; 1: 307–310.
22.
Molenaar IW, Sijtsma K. User's manual MSPfor Windows. A program for Mokken scale analysis. Version 5.0. Groningen: iec ProGAMMA, 2000.
23.
Mokken RJ. A theory and procedure of scale analysis. New York/Berlin: De Gruyter, 1971.
24.
Roorda LD, Roebroeck ME, Lankhorst GJ, Van Tilburg T, Bouter LM. Measuring functional limitations in rising and sitting down: development of a questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1996; 77: 663–669.
25.
Guyatt GH, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Disabil1987; 40: 171–178.
