Measurement of mobility following stroke: A comparison of the Modified Rivermead Mobility Index and the Motor Assessment Scale

Physiotherapy

Volumn 90, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 132-138

  Johnson, Louise ^a   Selfe, James ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Measurement; Mobility; Outcomes; Stroke; Validity

Indexed keywords

ACUTE DISEASE; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BODY EQUILIBRIUM; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; GENERAL HOSPITAL; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD; MOTOR DYSFUNCTION; PATIENT MOBILITY; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SITTING; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TIME; UNITED KINGDOM; VALIDATION PROCESS; WARD;

EID: 4544273835     PISSN: 00319406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.physio.2004.01.004     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Chartered Society Of Physiotherapy. Core standards of physiotherapy practice. London: CSP; 2000.
2. Collen FM, Wade GF, Robb, Bradshaw CM. The Rivermead Mobility Index: a further development of the Rivermead Motor Assessment. Int Disabilities Studies 1991;13:50-4.
3. Hsieh CL, Hsueh IP, Mao HF. Validity and responsiveness of the Rivermead Mobility Index in stroke patients. Scand J Rehabil Med 2000;32:140-2.
4. Rossier P, Wade DT. Validity and reliability comparison of 4 mobility measures in patients presenting with neurologic impairment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82:9-13.
5. Vaney C, Blaurodk H, Meisels C. Assessing mobility in multiple sclerosis using the Rivermead Mobility Index and gait speed. Clin Rehabil 1996;10:216-26.
6. Wright J, Cross J, Lamb S. Physiotherapy outcome measures for rehabilitation of elderly people: responsiveness to change of the Rivermead Mobility Index and Barthel Index. Physiotherapy 1998;84(5):216-21.
7. Lennon S, Hastings M. Key physiotherapy indicators for quality of stroke care. Physiotherapy 1996;82(12):655-64.
8. Lennon S, Johnson L. The Modified Rivermead Mobility Index: validity and reliability. Disability Rehabil 2000;22(18):833-9.
9. DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. London: Sage Publications; 1991. p. 22-41, 82-8.
10. Carr R, Shepherd R, Nordholm L, Lynne D. Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Phys Therapy 1985;65(2):175-80.
11. Loewen SC, Anderson BA. Reliability of the Modified Motor Assessment Scale and the Barthel Index. Phys Therapy 1988;68(7):1077-81.
12. Poole JL, Whitney SL. Motor Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients: concurrent validity and inter rater reliability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1988;69:197-295.
13. Malouin F, Pichare 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 Rehabil 1994;75:1206-12.
14. Means KM, Rodell DE, O'Sullinan PS. Use of an obstacle course to assess balance and mobility in the elderly, a validation study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1996;75(2):88-95.
15. Durward B, Baer G, Rowe P. Functional human movement, measurement and analysis. Oxford: Butterworth Heinmann; 1999.
16. Hsieh CL, Hsueh IP, Chiang F, Lin P. Inter-rater reliability and validity of the Action Research arm test in stroke patients. Age Ageing 1998;27:107-13.
17. Greenfield ML, Kuhn JE, Wostys EM. A statistics primer, validity and reliability. Am J Sports Med 1998;26(3):483-5.
18. Lord SE, Halligan PW, Wade DT. Visual gait analysis: the development of a clinical assessment and scale. Clin Rehabil 1998;12:107-19.
19. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1(8476): 307-10.
20. Sim J, Wright C. Research in health care, concepts, designs and methods. Stanley Thornes Gloster; 2000.
21. Daley K, Mayo N, Danys I, Cabot R, Wood-Dauphinee S. The stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement (STREAM): refining and validating the content. Physiotherapy Can 1997;49(4):269-78.
22. Gaito J, Yokubynas R. An empirical basis for the statement that measurement scale properties are irrelevant in statistical analysis. Bull Psychlnomic Soc 1986;6:449-50.
23. Davison ML, Sharma AR. ANOVA and ANCOVA of pre- and post-test ordinal data. Psychometrika 1994;59:593-600.
24. Davidson I, Waters K. Physiotherapists working with stroke patients: a national survey. Physiotherapy 2000;86:69-80.
25. Biemans MA, Dekker J, Van Der Woude LH. The internal consistency and validity of the self-assessment parkinson's disease disability scale. Clin Rehabil 2001;15:221-8.