Measurement structure of the wolf motor function test: Implications for motor control theory

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair

Volumn 24, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 791-801

  Woodbury, Michelle ^a,b   Velozo, Craig A ^a,b   Thompson, Paul A ^c   Light, Kathye ^b   Uswatte, Gitendra ^d   Taub, Edward ^d   Winstein, Carolee J ^e   Morris, David ^d   Blanton, Sarah ^f   Nichols Larsen, Deborah S ^g   Wolf, Steven L ^f  

^a VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^c SANFORD RESEARCH   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

measurement theory; motor control; Rasch analysis; rehabilitation; stroke; Wolf Motor Function Test

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FUNCTION TEST; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HEMIPARESIS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MOTOR CONTROL; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; RASCH ANALYSIS; RATING SCALE; THEORETICAL MODEL; WOLF MOTOR FUNCTION TEST;

DISABILITY EVALUATION; HUMANS; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; MOVEMENT DISORDERS; MUSCLE, SKELETAL; NEUROLOGIC EXAMINATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PHYSICAL THERAPY MODALITIES; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; STROKE; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS;

EID: 78649291989     PISSN: 15459683     EISSN: 15526844     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1545968310370749     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Nudo R. Adaptive plasticity in motor cortex: implications for rehabilitation after brain injury. J Rehabil Med. 2003 ; 41: 7-10.
2. Shumway-Cook A., Woollacott MH Motor Control: Translating Research into Clinical Practice. 3 rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins ; 2006.
3. Trombly CA, Wu CY Effect of rehabilitation tasks on organization of movement after stroke. Am J Occup Ther. 1999 ; 53: 333-344.
4. Wu C., Trombly CA, Lin K., Tickle-Degnen L. A kinematic study of contextual effects on reaching performance in persons with and without stroke: influences of object availability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000 ; 81: 95-101.
5. Rosenbaum DA, Cohen RG, Dawson AM, et al. The posture-based motion planning framework: new findings related to object manipulation, moving around obstacles, moving in three spatial dimensions, and haptic tracking. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2009 ; 629: 485-497.
6. Scott SH, Norman KE Computational approaches to motor control and their potential role for interpreting motor dysfunction. Curr Opin Neurol. 2003 ; 16: 693-698.
7. Shadmehr R., Krakauer JW A computational neuroanatomy for motor control. Exp Brain Res. 2008 ; 185: 359-381.
8. Krakauer JW Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol. 2006 ; 19: 84-90.
9. Carr JH, Shepherd RB Movement Science: Foundations for Physical Therapy in Rehabilitation. 2 nd ed. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen ; 2000.
10. Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP, et al. 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.
11. Lo AC, Guarino P., Krebs HI, et al. Multicenter randomized trial of robot-assisted rehabilitation for chronic stroke: methods and entry characteristics for VA ROBOTICS. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 ; 23: 775-783.
12. Woodbury ML, Howland DR, McGuirk TE, et al. Effects of trunk restraint combined with intensive task practice on poststroke upper extremity reach and function: a pilot study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 ; 23: 78-91.
13. Taub E., Miller NE, Novack TA, et al. Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993 ; 74: 347-354.
14. Howle J. Neuro-Developmental Treatment Approach: Theoretical Foundations and Principles of Clinical Practice. Laguna Beach, CA: Neuro-Developmental Treatment Association; 2002.
15. Mulder T., Zijlstra W., Geurts A. Assessment of motor recovery and decline. Gait Posture. 2002 ; 16: 198-210.
16. Levin MF, Kleim JA, Wolf SL What do motor "recovery" and "compensation" mean in patients following stroke ? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 ; 23: 313-319.
17. McDowell I., Newell C. The theoretical and technical foundations of health measurement. In: McDowell I, Newell C, eds. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. New York, NY: University Press; 1996: 10-46.
18. Mulder T., Nienhuis B., Pauwels J. The assessment of motor recovery: a new look at an old problem. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 1996 ; 6: 137-145.
19. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L., Leyman I., Olsson S., Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient: a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975 ; 7: 13-31.
20. Van Wijck FM, Pandyan AD, Johnson GR, Barnes MP Assessing motor deficits in neurological rehabilitation: patterns of instrument usage. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2001 ; 15: 23-30.
21. Crow JL, Harmeling-van der Wel BC Hierarchical properties of the motor function sections of the Fugl-Meyer assessment scale for people after stroke: a retrospective study. Phys Ther. 2008 ; 88: 1554-1567.
22. Woodbury ML, Velozo CA, Richards LG, Duncan PW, Studenski S., Lai SM Dimensionality and construct validity of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the upper extremity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 ; 88: 715-723.
23. Wolf SL, Lecraw DE, Barton LA, Jann BB Forced use of hemiplegic upper extremities to reverse the effect of learned nonuse among chronic stroke and head-injured patients. Exp Neurol. 1989 ; 104: 125-132.
24. Morris D., Crago J., DeLuca S., Pidikiti R., Taub E. Constraint-induced (CI) movement therapy for motor recovery after stroke. Neurorehabilitation. 1997 ; 9: 29-43.
25. Miltner WH, Bauder H., Sommer M., Dettmers C., Taub E. Effects of constraint-induced movement therapy on patients with chronic motor deficits after stroke: a replication. Stroke. 1999 ; 30: 586-592.
26. Blanton S., Wolf SL An application of upper-extremity constraint-induced movement therapy in a patient with subacute stroke. Phys Ther. 1999 ; 79: 847-853.
27. Richards LG, Senesac CR, Davis SB, Woodbury ML, Nadeau SE Bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing in chronic stroke: not always efficacious. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008 ; 22: 180-184.
28. Kowalczewski J., Gritsenko V., Ashworth N., Ellaway P., Prochazka A. Upper-extremity functional electric stimulation-assisted exercises on a workstation in the subacute phase of stroke recovery. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 ; 88: 833-839.
29. Morris DM, Uswatte G., Crago JE, Cook EW, Taub E. The reliability of the Wolf Motor Function Test for assessing upper extremity function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001 ; 82: 750-755.
30. Whitall J., Savin DNJr Harris-Love M., Waller SM Psychometric properties of a modified Wolf Motor Function Test for people with mild and moderate upper-extremity hemiparesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006 ; 87: 656-660.
31. Wolf SL, Catlin PA, Ellis M., Archer AL, Morgan B., Piacentino A. Assessing the Wolf Motor Function Test as an outcome measure for research in patients after stroke. Stroke. 2001 ; 32: 1635-1639.
32. Wolf SL, Thompson PA, Morris DM, et al. The EXCITE Trial: attributes of the Wolf Motor Function Test in patients with subacute stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2005 ; 19: 194-205.
33. Ang JH, Man DW The discriminative power of the Wolf Motor Function Test in assessing upper extremity functions in persons with stroke. Int J Rehabil Res. 2006 ; 29: 357-361.
34. Bogard K., Wolf S., Zhang Q., Thompson P., Morris D., Nichols-Larsen D. Can the Wolf Motor Function Test be streamlined? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 ; 23: 422-428.
35. Daly JJ, Ruff RL Construction of efficacious gait and upper limb functional interventions based on brain plasticity evidence and model-based measures for stroke patients. ScientificWorldJournal 2007 ; 7: 2031-2045.
36. Kline R. Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling. 2 nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford ; 2005.
37. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H., Rogers HJ Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage ; 1991.
38. Winstein CJ, Miller JP, Blanton S., et al. Methods for a multisite randomized trial to investigate the effect of constraint-induced movement therapy in improving upper extremity function among adults recovering from a cerebrovascular stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2003 ; 17: 137-152.
39. Morris DM, Taub E., Macrina DM, Cook EW, Geiger BF A method for standardizing procedures in rehabilitation: use in the extremity constraint induced therapy evaluation multisite randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009 ; 90: 663-668.
40. Mplus Version 4.21. www.statmodel.com. Accessed April 21, 2010.
41. Flora DB, Curran PJ An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychol Methods. 2004 ; 9: 466-491.
42. Hu L., Bentler PM Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999 ; 6: 1-55.
43. Marsh HW, Balla JR, McDonald RP Goodness-of-fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. Psychol Bull. 1988 ; 103: 391-410.
44. WINSTEPS Rasch Measurement Computer Program. Version 3.61.2. Chicago, IL: Winsteps.com; 2006.
45. Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978 ; 43: 561-573.
46. Linacre JM Understanding Rasch measurement: optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J Appl Meas. 2002 ; 3: 85-106.
47. Wright BD, Stone MH Best Test Design. Chicago, IL: Mesa Press ; 1979.
48. Bond TG, Fox CM Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum ; 2001.
49. Linacre JM A. User g's Guide to Winsteps and Ministeps Rasch-Model Computer Programs. Chicago, IL: Winsteps.com; 2006.
50. Tretriluxana J., Gordon J., Winstein CJ Manual asymmetries in grasp pre-shaping and transport-grasp coordination. Exp Brain Res. 2008 ; 188: 305-315.
51. Jeannerod M. Mechanisms of visuomotor coordination: a study in normal and brain-damaged subjects. Neuropsychologia. 1986 ; 24: 41-78.
52. Desmurget M., Grea H., Prablanc C. Final posture of the upper limb depends on the initial position of the hand during prehension movements. Exp Brain Res. 1998 ; 119: 511-516.
53. Sangole AP, Levin MF Palmar arch dynamics during reach-to-grasp tasks. Exp Brain Res. 2008 ; 190: 443-452.
54. Melgari JM, Pasqualetti P., Pauri F., Rossini PM Muscles in "concert": study of primary motor cortex upper limb functional topography. PLoS One. 2008 ; 3: e3069.
55. Fitts PM The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. 1954. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1992 ; 121: 262-269.
56. Fleishman EA Relating individual differences to the dimensions of human tasks. Ergonomics. 1978 ; 21: 1007-1019.
57. Gentile AM Implicit and explicit processes during acquisition of functional skills. Scand J Occup Ther. 1998 ; 5: 7-16.
58. Wood RE Task complexity: definition of the construct. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1986 ; 37: 60-82.
59. Lin KC, Huang YH, Hsieh YW, Wu CY Potential predictors of motor and functional outcomes after distributed constraint-induced therapy for patients with stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 ; 23: 336-342.
60. Fritz SL, Light KE, Patterson TS, Behrman AL, Davis SB Active finger extension predicts outcomes after constraint-induced movement therapy for individuals with hemiparesis after stroke. Stroke. 2005 ; 36: 1172-1177.
61. Sangole AP, Levin MF A new perspective in the understanding of hand dysfunction following neurological injury. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2007 ; 14: 80-94.
62. Bryant FB, Yarnold PR Principal components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In: Grimm LG, Yarnold PR, eds. Reading and Understanding Multivariate Analysis. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1995, pp. 99-136.
63. Gorsuch RL Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum ; 1983.
64. Linacre JM Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Meas Trans. 1994 ; 7: 328.
65. Taub E., Crago J., Uswatte G. Constraint-induced movement therapy: a new approach to treatment in physical rehabilitation. Rehabil Psychol. 1998 ; 43: 152-170.