Responsiveness and validity of the Motor Activity Log in patients during the subacute phase after stroke

Disability and Rehabilitation

Volumn 32, Issue 14, 2010, Pages 1184-1193

  Hammer, Ann M ^a,b   Lindmark, Birgitta ^c  

^a ÖREBRO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b ÖREBRO UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Motor activity log; Stroke; Upper limb

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DISABILITY; FEMALE; HAND STRENGTH; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; STROKE; VALIDATION STUDY;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HAND STRENGTH; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; STROKE;

EID: 77952932502     PISSN: 09638288     EISSN: 14645165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/09638280903437253     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva: WHO; 2001.
2. Uswatte G, Taub E, Morris D, Light K, Thompson PA. The Motor Activity Log-28: assessing daily use of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. Neurology 2006;67:1189-1194.
3. Broeks JG, Lankhorst GJ, Rumping K, Prevo AJ. The long- term outcome of arm function after stroke: results of a follow-up study. Disabil Rehabil 1999;21:357-364.
4. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.
5. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Holbrook A, McAlister FA. Users' guides to the medical literature: XIX. Applying clinical trial results. A. How to use an article measuring the effect of an intervention on surrogate end points. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1999;282:771-778.
6. Wade DT. Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1992.
7. Stratford PW, Binkley FM, Riddle DL. Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther 1996;76:1109-1123.
8. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:459-468.
9. Wallace D, Duncan PW, Lai SM. Comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the motor component of the Functional Independence Measure in stroke: the impact of using different methods for measuring responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 2002;55:922-928.
10. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:34-42.
11. Finch E. Physical rehabilitation outcome measures: a guide to enhanced clinical decision making. 2nd ed. Hamilton, Ontario: Decker; 2002.
12. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006; 4:54.
13. Uswatte G, Taub E. Implications of the learned nonuse formulation for measuring rehabilitation outcomes: Lessons from constraint-induced movement therapy. Rehabil Psychol 2005;50:34-42.
14. Taub E, Miller NE, Novack TA, Cook EW 3rd, Fleming WC, Nepomuceno CS, Connell JS, Crago JE. Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:347-354.
15. Ashford S, Slade M, Malaprade F, Turner-Stokes L. Evaluation of functional outcome measures for the hemi-paretic upper limb: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med 2008; 40:787-795.
16. Wittenberg GF, Chen R, Ishii K, Bushara KO, Taub E, Gerber LH, Hallett M, Cohen LG. Constraint-induced therapy in stroke: magnetic-stimulation motor maps and cerebral activation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2003;17:48-57.
17. Sterr A, Elbert T, Berthold I, Kolbel S, Rockstroh B, Taub E. Longer versus shorter daily constraint-induced movement therapy of chronic hemiparesis: an exploratory study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:1374-1377.
18. Taub E, Uswatte G, King DK, Morris D, Crago JE, Chatterjee A. A placebo-controlled trial of constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremity after stroke. Stroke 2006;37:1045-1049.
19. Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP, Taub E, Uswatte G, Morris D, Giuliani C, Light KE, Nichols-Larsen D. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2006;296:2095-2104.
20. Taub E, Uswatte G, Mark VW, Morris DM. The learned nonuse phenomenon: implications for rehabilitation. Eura Medicophys 2006;42:241-256.
21. Uswatte G, Taub E, Morris D, Vignolo M, McCulloch K. Reliability and validity of the upper-extremity Motor Activity Log-14 for measuring real-world arm use. Stroke 2005;36: 2493-2496.
22. van der Lee JH, Beckerman H, Knol DL, de Vet HC, Bouter LM. Clinimetric properties of the Motor Activity Log for the assessment of arm use in hemiparetic patients. Stroke 2004; 35:1410-1414.
23. Lang CE, Edwards DF, Birkenmeier RL, Dromerick AW. Estimating minimal clinically important differences of upper- extremity measures early after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89:1693-1700.
24. Fritz SL, George SZ, Wolf SL, Light KE. Participant perception of recovery as criterion to establish importance of improvement for constraint-induced movement therapy outcome measures: a preliminary study. Phys Ther 2007;87:170-178.
25. Hammer AM, Lindmark B. Effects of forced use on arm function in the subacute phase after stroke: a randomized, clinical pilot study. Phys Ther 2009;89:526-539.
26. Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther 1987;67:206-207.
27. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975;12:189-198.
28. Fugl-Meyer AR. Post-stroke hemiplegia assessment of physical properties. Scand J Rehabil Med Suppl 1980;7:85-93.
29. Gladstone DJ, Danells CJ, Black SE. The Fugl-Meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2002;16:232-240.
30. Heller A, Wade DT, Wood VA, Sunderland A, Hewer RL, Ward E. Arm function after stroke: measurement and recovery over the first three months. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1987;50:714-719. (Pubitemid 17076283)
31. Nordenskiold UM, Grimby G. Grip force in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia and in healthy subjects. A study with the Grippit instrument. Scand J Rheumatol 1993;22:14-19.
32. Hammer A, Lindmark B. Test-retest intra-rater reliability of grip force in patients with stroke. J Rehabil Med 2003;35:189-194.
33. Lyle RC. A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehabil Res 1981;4:483-492.
34. Carr JH, Shepherd RB, Nordholm L, Lynne D. Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Phys Ther 1985;65:175-180.
35. Lannin NA. Reliability, validity and factor structure of the upper limb subscale of the Motor Assessment Scale (UL-MAS) in adults following stroke. Disabil Rehabil 2004;26:109-115.
36. De Weerdt WJG, Harrison MA. Measuring recovery of armhand function in stroke patients: a comparison of the Brunnstrom-Fugl-Meyer test and the Action Research Arm Test. Physiother Can 1985;37:65-70.
37. Van der Lee JH, De Groot V, Beckerman H, Wagenaar RC, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. The intra- and interrater reliability of the action research arm test: a practical test of upper extremity function in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82:14-19.
38. Poole JL, Whitney SL. Motor assessment scale for stroke patients: concurrent validity and interrater reliability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1988;69(3 Part 1):195-197.
39. Hammer A, Lindmark B. Is forced use of the paretic upper limb beneficial? A randomized pilot study during subacute post-stroke recovery. Clin Rehabil 2009;23:424-433.
40. van der Giesen FJ, Nelissen RG, Arendzen JH, de Jong Z, Wolterbeek R, Vliet Vlieland TP. Responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire - Dutch language version in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89:1121-1126.
41. Domholdt E. Physical therapy research: principles and applications. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2000.
42. Colton T. Statistics in medicine. 1st ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown; 1974.
43. Croarkin E, Danoff J, Barnes C. Evidence-based rating of upper-extremity motor function tests used for people following a stroke. Phys Ther 2004;84:62-74.
44. Platz T, Pinkowski C, van Wijck F, Kim IH, di Bella P, Johnson G. Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer test, Action Research Arm test and Box and Block test: a multicentre study. Clin Rehabil 2005;19:404-411.
45. Hsieh YW, Wu CY, Lin KC, Chang YF, Chen CL, Liu JS. Responsiveness and validity of three outcome measures of motor function after stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 2009:1386-1391.
46. Harris JE, Eng JJ. Paretic upper-limb strength best explains arm activity in people with stroke. Phys Ther 2007;87:88-97.
47. Canning CG, Ada L, Adams R, O'Dwyer NJ. Loss of strength contributes more to physical disability after stroke than loss of dexterity. Clin Rehabil 2004;18:300-308.
48. Michielsen ME, de Niet M, Ribbers GM, Stam HJ, Bussmann JB. Evidence of a logarithmic relationship between motor capacity and actual performance in daily life of the paretic arm following stroke. J Rehabil Med 2009;41:327-331.
49. Wood-Dauphinee SL, Williams JI, Shapiro SH. Examining outcome measures in a clinical study of stroke. Stroke 1990; 21:731-739.
50. van der Lee JH, Wagenaar RC, Lankhorst GJ, Vogelaar TW, Deville WL, Bouter LM. Forced use of the upper extremity in chronic stroke patients: results from a single-blind randomized clinical trial. Stroke 1999;30:2369-2375.