Responsiveness, minimal detectable change, and minimal clinically important difference of the nottingham extended activities of daily living scale in patients with improved performance after stroke rehabilitation

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 92, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 1281-1287

  Wu, Ching Yi ^a   Chuang, Li Ling ^b   Lin, Keh Chung ^b   Lee, Shin Da ^c   Hong, Wei Hsien ^c  

^a CHANG GUNG UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (Taiwan)

^b NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Taiwan)

^c CHINA MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Clinimetrics; Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living; Rehabilitation; Stroke rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT ERROR; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; MINIMAL DETECTABLE CHANGE; NOTTINGHAM EXTENDED ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING SCALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RESPONSE VARIABLE; STANDARDIZED RESPONSE MEAN; STROKE; STROKE PATIENT;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; STROKE;

EID: 79961059225     PISSN: 00039993     EISSN: 1532821X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.03.008     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Lloyd-Jones D, Adams RJ, Brown TM, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics - 2010 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2010;121:e46-215.
2. Pettersen R, Dahl T, Wyller TB. Prediction of long-term functional outcome after stroke rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil 2002;16:149-59. (Pubitemid 34187842)
3. Chong DK. Measurement of instrumental activities of daily living in stroke. Stroke 1995;26:1119-22.
4. Lindeboom R, Vermeulen M, Holman R, De Haan RJ. Activities of daily living instruments: optimizing scales for neurologic assessments. Neurology 2003;60:738-42. (Pubitemid 36297353)
5. Ward G, Jagger C, Harper W. A review of instrumental ADL assessments for use with elderly people. Rev Clin Gerontol 1998;8:65-71. (Pubitemid 28220642)
6. Salter KL, Teasell RW, Foley NC, Jutai JW. Outcome assessment in randomized controlled trials of stroke rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2007;86:1007-12. (Pubitemid 350307463)
7. Wade DT, Halligan P. New wine in old bottles: the WHO ICF as an explanatory model of human behaviour. Clin Rehabil 2003;17:349-54. (Pubitemid 36621944)
8. Sveen U, Thommessen B, Bautz-Holter E, Wyller TB, Laake K. Well-being and instrumental activities of daily living after stroke. Clin Rehabil 2004;18:267-74. (Pubitemid 38559170)
9. Gladman JR, Lincoln NB, Adams SA. Use of the extended ADL scale with stroke patients. Age Ageing 1993;22:419-24. (Pubitemid 23348149)
10. Gompertz P, Pound P, Ebrahim S. Validity of the extended activities of daily living scale. Clin Rehabil 1994;8:275-80. (Pubitemid 24330546)
11. Hsueh IP, Huang SL, Chen MH, Jush SD, Hsieh CL. Evaluation of stroke patients with the extended activities of daily living scale in Taiwan. Disabil Rehabil 2000;22:495-500.
12. Nouri FM, Lincoln NB. An extended activities of daily living scale for stroke patients. Clin Rehabil 1987;1:301-5.
13. Wu CY, Chuang LL, Lin KC, Horng YS. Responsiveness and validity of two outcome measures of instrumental activities of daily living in stroke survivors receiving rehabilitative therapies. Clin Rehabil 2011;25:175-83.
14. Portney LGW. MP foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson/Prentice Hall; 2009.
15. Wright JG. The minimal important difference: who's to say what is important? J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:1221-2.
16. Liang MH, Lew RA, Stucki G, Fortin PR, Daltroy L. Measuring clinically important changes with patient-oriented questionnaires. Med Care 2002;40(Suppl 4):II45-51.
17. Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics 2000;18:419-23.
18. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:102-9.
19. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002;77:371-83. (Pubitemid 34260746)
20. Revicki DA, Cella D, Hays RD, Sloan JA, Lenderking WR, Aaronson NK. Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006;4:70.
21. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:861-73. (Pubitemid 29385600)
22. Stratford PW, Binkley FM, Riddle DL. Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther 1996;76:1109-23. (Pubitemid 26339301)
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;89:1693-700.
24. Dobkin BH. Progressive staging of pilot studies to improve phase III trials for motor interventions. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009;23:197-206.
25. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:459-68. (Pubitemid 30254341)
26. Lin KC, Chang YF, Wu CY, Chen YA. Effects of constraint-induced therapy versus bilateral arm training on motor performance, daily functions, and quality of life in stroke survivors. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009;23:441-8.
27. Lin KC, Wu CY, Liu JS, Chen YT, Hsu CJ. Constraint-induced therapy versus dose-matched control intervention to improve motor ability, basic/extended daily functions, and quality of life in stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009;23:160-5.
28. Wu CY, Chuang LL, Lin KC, Chen HC, Tsay PK. Randomized trial of distributed constraint-induced therapy versus bilateral arm training for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor control and function after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2011;25:130-9.
29. Brunnstrom S. Movement therapy in hemiplegia. New York: Harper & Row; 1970.
30. Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a Modified Ashworth Scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther 1987;67:206-7. (Pubitemid 17026064)
31. 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;12:189-98.
32. Wu CY, Chen CL, Tsai WC, Lin KC, Chou SH. A randomized controlled trial of modified constraint-induced movement therapy for elderly stroke survivors: changes in motor impairment, daily functioning, and quality of life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007;88:273-8.
33. Duncan PW, Bode RK, Min Lai S, Perera S. Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: the Stroke Impact Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84:950-63. (Pubitemid 36835117)
34. Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, Johnson D, Embretson S, Laster LJ. The Stroke Impact Scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke 1999;30:2131-40.
35. Duncan PW, Lai SM, Tyler D, Perera S, Reker DM, Studenski S. Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke 2002;33:2593-9. (Pubitemid 35266429)
36. Lin KC, Fu T, Wu CY, Hsieh YW, Chen CL, Lee PC. Psychometric comparisons of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale. Qual Life Res 2010;19:435-43.
37. 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;30:2369-75. (Pubitemid 29517737)
38. Iyer LV, Haley SM, Watkins MP, Dumas HM. Establishing minimal clinically important differences for scores on the pediatric evaluation of disability inventory for inpatient rehabilitation. Phys Ther 2003;83:888-98. (Pubitemid 37237406)
39. Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 2003;12:12-20. (Pubitemid 36286825)
40. Lin KC, Fu T, Wu CY, et al. Minimal detectable change and clinically important difference of the Stroke Impact Scale in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2010;24:486-92.
41. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 1990;28:632-42.
42. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc; 1988.
43. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1993.
44. Schmitt JS, Di Fabio RP. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57:1008-18. (Pubitemid 39446639)
45. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:1033-9. (Pubitemid 44376776)
46. Wagner JM, Rhodes JA, Patten C. Reproducibility and minimal detectable change of three-dimensional kinematic analysis of reaching tasks in people with hemiparesis after stroke. Phys Ther 2008;88:652-63. (Pubitemid 351620016)