Objective: A new scale, the Mobility Scale for Acute Stroke Patients (MSAS), was developed to specifically discriminate between the lower levels of mobility found in acute stroke patients in the first two weeks post onset. The aim of this study was to investigate the concurrent validity of this new scale with other established scales.
Main outcome measures: Concurrent validity was assessed with respect to four other well-validated measures: Motor Assessment Scale (MAS), Functional Ambulation Classification system (FAC), Functional Independence Measure (FIM), and Barthel Index (BI). The measures selected for comparison contained items similar to those in the MSAS.
Subjects: From a total of 539 patients who were admitted over a two-year period with a primary diagnosis of stroke, 106 satisfied the criteria for inclusion in this study.
Results: The MSAS was found to have a high level of concurrent validity (r > 0.80) when the total score was correlated with the total scores of the MAS, FAC, FIM (mobility and ADL) and BI. A high level of association was found between the nonbed mobility items (sit to stand, stand and walk) of the MSAS and the mobility items (toileting, transfers, walk and stairs) of the FIM and BI. There was a weaker association between the MSAS items and the ADL items (activities of daily living) of the BI and FIM.
Conclusion: A new scale designed specifically for acute stroke patients was found to have a high degree of concurrent validity when compared with four other scales containing similar items.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Mahoney F, Barthel D. Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Md State Med J1965; 14: 61–65.
2.
Hamilton B, Granger C, Sherwin F, Zielezny M, Tashman J. A uniform national data system for rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer M ed. Rehabilitation outcomes analysis and measurement. Baltimore: Paul Brooks Publishing Co, 1987: 137–147.
3.
Carr J, Shepherd R, Nordholm L, Lynne D. Investigation of a new Motor Assessment Scale for stroke patients. Phys Ther1985; 65: 175–180.
4.
Lincoln N, Leadbitter D. Assessment of motor function in stroke patients. Physiotherapy1979; 65:48–50.
5.
Harvey R, Jellinek H. Functional performance assessment: A program approach. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1981; 62: 456–461.
6.
Gowland C, Stratford O, Ward M et al. Measuring physical impairment and disability with the Chedoke McMaster Stroke Assessment. Stroke1993; 24: 58–63.
7.
Bohannon R, Kloter K, Cooper J. Recovery and outcome of patients with stroke treated in an acute care hospital. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis1991; 1: 190–195.
8.
Roach K, Van Dillen L. Development of an Acute Care Index of Functional status for patients with neurological impairment. Phys Ther1988; 68: 1102–1108.
9.
Simondson J, Goldie P, Brock K, Nosworthy J. The Mobility Scale for Acute Stroke Patients: intra-rater and interrater reliability. Clin Rehabil1996; 10: 295–300.
10.
Streiner D, Norman G. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
11.
Task Force On Standards for Measurement in Physical Therapy. Standards for tests and measurements in physical therapy practice. Phys Ther1991; 71: 589–622.
12.
Brock K, Robinson P, Simondson J, Goldie P, Nosworthy J, Greenwood K. Prediction of length of hospital stay following stroke. J Qual Clin Pract1997; 17: 37–46.
13.
Anastasi A. Psychological testing. New York: Macmillan, 1982.
14.
Bennekom C, Jelles F, Lankhorst G, Bouter L. The Rehabilitation Activities Profile: a validation study of its use as a disability index with stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1995; 76: 501–507.
15.
Gresham G, Phillips T, Labi M. ADL status in stroke: relative merits of three standard indexes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1980; 61: 355–358.
16.
Kidd D, Stewart G, Baldry J et al. The Functional Independence Measure: a comparative validity and reliability study. Disabil Rehabil1995; 17: 10–14.
17.
Wade D, Hewer R. Functional abilities after stroke: measurement, natural history and prognosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1987; 50: 177–182.
18.
Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams I Shapiro S. Examining outcome measures in a clinical study of stroke. Stroke1990; 21: 731–739.
19.
Fisher W, Harvey R, Taylor P, Kilgore K, Kelly C. Rehabits: a common language of functional assessment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1995; 76: 113–122.
20.
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: 1206–1202.
21.
Poole J, Whitney S. Motor Assessment Scale for stroke patients: concurrent validity and interrater reliability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1988; 69: 195–197.
22.
Holden M, Gill K, Magliozzi M, Nathan J, Piehl-Baker L. Clinical gait assessment in the neurologically impaired, reliability and meaningfulness. Phys Ther1984; 64: 35–40.
23.
Dodds T, Martin D, Stolov W, Deyo R. A validation of the Functional Independence Measure and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1993; 74: 531–536.
24.
Stineman M, Shea J, Jette A et al. The Functional Independence Measure: tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1996; 77: 1101–1108.
25.
Stineman M, Jette A, Fiedler R, Granger C. Impairment-specific dimensions within the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1997; 78: 636–643.
