Scale for contraversive pushing: Cutoff scores for diagnosing "pusher behavior" and construct validity

Physical Therapy

Volumn 88, Issue 8, 2008, Pages 947-955

  Baccini, Marco ^a,b,c,d   Paci, Matteo ^d,e   Nannetti, Luca ^f   Biricolti, Claudia ^a,d   Rinaldi, Lucio A ^d  

^a SANTA MARIA ANNUNZIATA HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^b Piero Palagi Hospital   (Italy)

^c Rehabilitation Center   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITY OF FLORENCE   (Italy)

^e Villa Fiorita Hospital   (Italy)

^f Azienda Sanitaria   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HUMAN; KAPPA STATISTICS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; PATIENT MOBILITY; PUSHER BEHAVIOR; RELIABILITY; SCALE FOR CONTRAVERSIVE PUSHING; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; STROKE; STROKE PATIENT;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, NEUROLOGICAL; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HEMIPLEGIA; HUMANS; MALE; MOVEMENT DISORDERS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; STROKE;

EID: 48349102705     PISSN: 00319023     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20070179     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Davies PM. Steps to Follow: A Guide to the Treatment of Adult Hemiplegia. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer; 1985.
2. Pedersen PM, Wandel A, Jorgensen HS, et al. Ipsilateral pushing in stroke: incidence, relation to neuropsychological symptoms, and impact on rehabilitation. The Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77:25-28.
3. Bohannon RW, Cook AC, Larkin PA, et al. The listing phenomenon of hemiplegic patients. Neurol Rep. 1986;10:43-44.
4. Premoselli S, Cesana L, Cerri C. Pusher syndrome in stroke: clinical, neuropsychological and neurophysiological investigation. Eura Medicophys. 2001;37:143-151.
5. Lafosse C, Kerckhofs E, Troch M, et al. Contraversive pushing and inattention of the contralesional hemispace. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2005;27:460-484.
6. Danells CJ, Black SE, Gladstone DJ, et al. Poststroke pushing: natural history and relationship to motor and functional recovery. Stroke. 2004;35:2873-2878.
7. Brunnström S. Movement Therapy in Hemiplegia: A Neurophysiological Approach. New York, NY: Harper & Row; 1970.
8. D'Aquila MA, Smith T, Organ D, et al. Validation of a lateropulsion scale for patients recovering from stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18:102-109.
9. Karnath HO. Pusher syndrome: a frequent but little-known disturbance of body orientation perception. J Neurol. 2007;25 4:415-424.
10. Karnath HO, Ferber S, Dichgans J. The origin of contraversive pushing: evidence for a second graviceptive system in humans. Neurology. 2000;55:1298-1304.
11. Perennou DA, Amblard B, Laassel EM, et al. Understanding the pusher behavior of some stroke patients with spatial deficit: a pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:570-575.
12. Pérrennou DA, Amblard B, Leblond C, et al. Biased postural vertical in humans with hemispheric cerebral lesions. Neurosci Lett. 1998;252:75-78.
13. Pérennou D. Towards a better understanding and quantitative assessment of pushing, a postural behaviour caused by some strokes. Ann Readapt Med Phys. 2005;48:198-206.
14. Karnath HO, Brötz D. Letter to the Editor: Instructions for the Clinical Scale for Contraversive Pushing (SCP). Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;4:370-371.
15. Baccini M, Paci M, Rinaldi LA. The Scale for Contraversive Pushing: a reliability and validity study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2006;20:468-472.
16. Tyson SF, Hanley M, Chillala J, et al. The relationship between balance, disability, and recovery after stroke: predictive validity of the Brunei Balance Assessment. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21:341-346.
17. Tyson SF, Hanley M, Chillala J, et al. Balance disability after stroke. Phys Ther. 2006;86:30-38.
18. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, et al. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient, I: a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7:13-31.
19. Lindmark B, Hamrin E. Evaluation of functional capacity after stroke as a basis for active intervention: presentation of a modified chart for motor capacity assessment and its reliability. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1988;20:103-109.
20. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61-65.
21. Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, et al. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF body functions. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:191-207.
22. Kierkegaard M, Tollback A. Inter- and intra-rater reliability of the B. Lindmark Motor Assessment. Advances in Physiotherapy. 2005;7:2-6.
23. Barak S, Duncan PW. Issues in selecting outcome measures to assess functional recovery after stroke. NeuroRx. 2006;3:505-524.
24. Saj A, Honoré J, Coello Y, et al. The visual vertical in the pusher syndrome: influence of hemispace and body position. J Neurol. 2005;252:885-891.
25. Johannsen L, Fruhmann Berger M, Karnath HO. Subjective visual vertical (SW) determined in a representative sample of 15 patients with pusher syndrome. J Neurol. 2006;253:1367-1369.
26. Lagerqvist J, Skargren E. Pusher syndrome: reliability, validity and sensitivity to change of a classification instrument. Advances in Physiotherapy. 2006;8:154-160.
27. Fitzpatrick R, Ziebland S, Jenkinson C, et al. Importance of sensitivity to change as a criterion for selecting health status measures. Qual Health Care. 1992;1:89-93.
28. Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Lott SA, Riddle DL; North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. Phys Ther. 1999;79:371-383.