|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Psychometric Comparisons of 2 Versions of the Fugl-Meyer Motor Scale and 2 Versions of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement
I-Ping Hsueh, MA1,
Miao-Ju Hsu, PhD2,
Ching-Fan Sheu, PhD3,
Su Lee, MS4,
Ching-Lin Hsieh, PhD, MD1,
and
Jau-Hong Lin, PhD2*
1 School of Occupational Therapy, and Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University
2 Faculty of Physical Therapy, College of Health Science, Kaohsiung Medical University and Department of Rehabilitation, Kaohsiung Medical Univ Hospital, Taiwan
3 Department of Psychology, National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan
4 Department of Rehabilitation, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Taiwan
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jhlin{at}kmu.edu.tw.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
Objective. To provide empirical justification for selecting motor scales for stroke patients, the authors compared the psychometric properties (validity, responsiveness, test-retest reliability, and smallest real difference [SRD]) of the Fugl-Meyer Motor Scale (FM), the simplified FM (S-FM), the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement instrument (STREAM), and the simplified STREAM (S-STREAM). Methods. For the validity and responsiveness study, 50 inpatients were assessed with the FM and the STREAM at admission and discharge to a rehabilitation department. The scores of the S-FM and the S-STREAM were retrieved from their corresponding scales. For the test-retest reliability study, a therapist administered both scales on a different sample of 60 chronic patients on 2 occasions. Results. Only the SSTREAM had no notable floor or ceiling effects at admission and discharge. The 4 motor scales had good concurrent validity (rho .91) and satisfactory predictive validity (rho = .72-.77). The scales showed responsiveness (effect size d 0.34; standardized response mean 0.95; P < .0001), with the S-STREAM most responsive. The test-retest agreements of the scales were excellent (intraclass correlation coefficients .96). The SRD of the 4 scales was 10% of their corresponding highest score, indicating acceptable level of measurement error. The upper extremity and the lower extremity subscales of the 4 showed similar results. Conclusions. The 4 motor scales showed acceptable levels of reliability, validity, and responsiveness in stroke patients. The S-STREAM is recommended because it is short, responsive to change, and able to discriminate patients with severe or mild stroke.
First published on July 21, 2008, doi:10.1177/1545968308315999
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2008;22:737.
A more recent version of this article appeared on November 1, 2008

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. S. Reisman, R. Wityk, K. Silver, and A. J. Bastian
Split-Belt Treadmill Adaptation Transfers to Overground Walking in Persons Poststroke
Neurorehabil Neural Repair,
September 1, 2009;
23(7):
735 - 744.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
T. Platz, S. van Kaick, J. Mehrholz, O. Leidner, C. Eickhof, and M. Pohl
Best Conventional Therapy Versus Modular Impairment-Oriented Training for Arm Paresis After Stroke: A Single-Blind, Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Neurorehabil Neural Repair,
September 1, 2009;
23(7):
706 - 716.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J.-H. Lin, M.-J. Hsu, C.-F. Sheu, T.-S. Wu, R.-T. Lin, C.-H. Chen, and C.-L. Hsieh
Psychometric Comparisons of 4 Measures for Assessing Upper-Extremity Function in People With Stroke
Physical Therapy,
August 1, 2009;
89(8):
840 - 850.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. J. Housman, K. M. Scott, and D. J. Reinkensmeyer
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Gravity-Supported, Computer-Enhanced Arm Exercise for Individuals With Severe Hemiparesis
Neurorehabil Neural Repair,
June 1, 2009;
23(5):
505 - 514.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
B. H. Dobkin
Progressive Staging of Pilot Studies to Improve Phase III Trials for Motor Interventions
Neurorehabil Neural Repair,
March 1, 2009;
23(3):
197 - 206.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|
|