SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1545968308331144v1
23/5/429    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lin, K.-c.
Right arrow Articles by Liu, J.-s.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lin, K.-c.
Right arrow Articles by Liu, J.-s.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Stroke
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Article

Minimal Detectable Change and Clinically Important Difference of the Wolf Motor Function Test in Stroke Patients

Keh-chung Lin, Yu-wei Hsieh, Ching-yi Wu*, Chia-ling Chen, Yuh Jang, and Jung-sen Liu

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: cywu{at}mail.cgu.edu.tw.


   Abstract
Objectives. This study aimed to establish the minimal detectable change (MDC) and clinically important differences (CID) of the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) in patients with stroke, and to assess the proportions of patients’ change scores exceeding the MDC and CID after stroke rehabilitation. Methods. A total of 57 patients received 1 of the 3 treatments for 3 weeks and underwent clinical assessments before and after treatment. The MDC, at 90% confidence (MDC90), was calculated from the standard error of measurement to indicate a real change for individual patients. Anchor-based and distribution-based approaches were used to triangulate the values of minimal CID. The percentages of patients exceeding the MDC and minimal CID were also examined. Results. The MDC90of the WMFT was 4.36 for the performance time (WMFT time) and 0.37 for the functional ability scale (WMFT FAS). The minimal CID ranged from 1.5 to 2 seconds on the WMFT time and from 0.2 to 0.4 points on the WMFT FAS. The MDC and CID proportions ranged from 14% to 30% on the WMFT time and from 39% to 65% on the WMFT FAS, respectively. Conclusions. The change score of an individual patient has to reach 4.36 and 0.37 on the WMFT time and WMFT FAS to indicate a real change. The mean change scores of a stroke group on the WMFT time and WMFT FAS should achieve 1.5 to 2 seconds and 0.2 to 0.4 points to be regarded as clinically important changes. Furthermore, the WMFT FAS may be more responsive than the WMFT time based on the results of proportions exceeding the threshold criteria.

First published on March 16, 2009, doi:10.1177/1545968308331144

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2009;23:429.

A more recent version of this article appeared on June 1, 2009


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?




Advertisement