Objective: To investigate the sensitivity of three commonly used functional outcome measures to detect change over time in subjects receiving inpatient rehabilitation post stroke.
Design: Subjects were assessed within one week of admission and one week of discharge from an inpatient rehabilitation facility. Several parameters of sensitivity were calculated, including floor and ceiling effects, the percentage of subjects showing no change and the effect size of the change between admission and discharge.
Setting: The medical rehabilitation ward of an inpatient rehabilitation facility.
Subjects: Seventy-eight subjects receiving inpatient rehabilitation following a first or recurrent stroke.
Measures: Five-metre walk, comfortable pace (gait speed), the Berg Balance Scale and the Motor Assessment Scale.
Results: Sixty-one subjects had complete admission and discharge data. Gait speed and the Berg Balance Scale were both sensitive to change and demonstrated large effect sizes. The Motor Assessment Scale item five also showed a large effect size and was able to detect change amongst lower functioning subjects. The other items of the Motor Assessment Scale were less useful, in particular, the effect sizes for upper extremity change scores were small (d=0.36–0.5) and the majority of subjects (44.3–63.9%) showed no change over time on these measures.
Conclusion: Gait speed, the Berg Balance Scale and the Motor Assessment Scale item five were sensitive to change over time in this sample.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1 Salbach, NM, Mayo NE, Higgins J, Ahmed S, Finch LE, Richards CL. Responsiveness and predictability of gait speed and other disability measures in acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2001; 82: 1204–1212.
2.
2 Wood-Dauphinee S, Berg K, Bravo G, Williams JI. The balance scale: Responsiveness to clinically meaningful changes. Can J Rehabil1997; 10: 35–50.
3.
3 Hsueh I, Hsieh C. Responsiveness of two upper extremity function instruments for stroke inpatients receiving rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil2002; 16: 617–624.
4.
4 Berg K. Balance and its measure in the elderly: a review. Physiother Can1989; 41: 240–246.
5.
5 Berg KO, Maki BE, Williams JI, Holliday PJ, Wood-Dauphinee SL. Clinical and laboratory measures of postural balance in an elderly population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1992; 73: 1073–1080.
6.
6 Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI: The Balance Scale: Reliability assessment with elderly residents and patients with an acute stroke. Scand J Rehabil Med1995; 27:27–36.
7.
7 Niam S, Cheung W, Sullivan PE, Kent S, Gu X. Balance and physical impairments after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1999; 80: 1227–1233.
8.
8 Stevenson TJ, Garland SJ. Standing balance during internally produced perturbations in subjects with hemiplegia: validation of the balance scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1996; 77: 656–662.
9.
9 Carr JH, Shepherd RB, Nordholm L, Lynne D. Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Phys Ther1985; 65: 175–180.
10.
10 Loewen SC, Anderson BA. Reliability of the Modified Motor Assessment Scale and the Barthel Index. Phys Ther1988; 68: 1077–1081.
11.
11 Dean C, Mackey F. Motor assessment scale scores as a measure of rehabilitation outcome following stroke. Aust J Physiother1992; 38:31–35.
12.
12 Williams BK, Galea MP, Winter AT. What is the functional outcome for the upper limb after stroke?Aust J Physiother2001; 47:19–27.
13.
13 Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences, second edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14.
14 Liang M. Longitudanal construct validity. Establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaulative instruments. Med Care2000; 38 (suppl II): II-84–II-90.
