Interrater reliability of the wolf motor function test-functional ability scale: Why it matters

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair

Volumn 29, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 436-443

  Duff, Susan V ^a   He, Jiaxiu ^b   Nelsen, Monica A ^c   Lane, Christianne J ^c   Rowe, Veronica T ^d,e   Wolf, Steve L ^f   Dromerick, Alexander W ^g   Winstein, Carolee J ^c  

^a THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS   (United States)

^e TEXAS WOMAN'S UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

assessment; impairment; motor control; observational; quality; stroke

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FUNCTIONAL STATUS ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; LOCOMOTION; MEASUREMENT PRECISION; MOTOR CONTROL; MOTOR DYSFUNCTION ASSESSMENT; NOISE REDUCTION; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REHABILITATION MEDICINE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; WOLF MOTOR FUNCTION TEST FUNCTIONAL ABILITY SCALE; ARM; DISABILITY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MOTOR ACTIVITY; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STROKE REHABILITATION; TIME FACTOR;

ARM; AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE III AS TOPIC; DISABILITY EVALUATION; HUMANS; MOTOR ACTIVITY; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; STROKE REHABILITATION; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84930734222     PISSN: 15459683     EISSN: 15526844     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1545968314553030     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Kitago T, Liang J, Huang VS, et al. Improvement after constraint-induced movement therapy: recovery of normal motor control or task-specific compensation?. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013 ; 27: 99-109
2. van Kordelaar J, van Wegan EE, Kwakkel G. The impact of time on quality of motor control of the paretic upper limb after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 ; 95: 338-344
3. Alberts JL, Butler AJ, Wolf SL. The effects of constraint-induced therapy on precision grip: a preliminary study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2004 ; 18: 250-258
4. Dobkin BH, Dorsch A. The promise of mHealth: daily activity monitoring and outcome assessments by wearable sensors. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011 ; 25: 788-798
5. Wade E, Chen C, Winstein CJ. Spectral analysis of wrist motion in individuals poststroke: the development of a performance measure with promise for unsupervised settings. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013 ; 28: 169-178
6. Wolf SL, Catlin PA, Ellis M, Archer AL, Morgan B, Piacentino A. Assessing Wolf Motor Function Test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke. Stroke. 2001 ; 32: 1635-1639
7. 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
8. Morris DM, Uswatte G, Crago JE, et al. The reliability of the Wolf Motor Function Test for assessing upper extremity function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001 ; 82: 750-755
9. Lin KC, Hsieh YW, Wu CY, Chen CL, Jang Y, Liu JS. Minimal detectable change and clinically important difference of the Wolf Motor Function Test in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 ; 23: 429-434
10. Lin JH, Hsu MJ, Sheu CF, et al. Psychometric comparisons of 4 measures for assessing upper-extremity function in people with stroke. Phys Ther. 2009 ; 89: 840-850
11. Winstein CJ, Wolf SL, Dromerick AW, et al. Interdisciplinary Comprehensive Arm Rehabilitation Evaluation (ICARE): a randomized controlled trial protocol. BMC Neurol. 2013 ; 13: 5
12. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960 ; 20: 37-46
13. Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull. 1968 ; 70: 213-220
14. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement observation agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977 ; 33: 159-174
15. 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
16. Dobkin B, Barbeau H, Deforge D, et al. The evolution of walking-related outcomes over the first 12 weeks of rehabilitation for incomplete traumatic spinal cord injury: the multicenter randomized Spinal Cord Injury Locomotor Trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007 ; 21: 25-35
17. Duncan PW, Sullivan KJ, Behrman AL, et al. Body-weight-supported treadmill rehabilitation after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2011 ; 364: 2026-2036
18. Harvey RL, Winstein CH. Design for the Everest randomized trial of cortical stimulation and rehabilitation for arm function following stroke. Neurore-habil Neural Repair. 2009 ; 23: 32-44
19. Lo AC, Guarino PD, Richards LG, et al. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2010 ; 362: 1772-1783
20. Adkins DL, Schallert T, Goldstein LB. Poststroke treatment: lost in translation. Stroke. 2009 ; 40: 8-9
21. Dobkin BH. Progressive staging of pilot studies to improve phase III trials for motor interventions. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 ; 23: 197-206
22. Dobkin BH, Duncan PW. Should body-weight supported treadmill training and robotic-assisted training trot back to the starting gate?. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012 ; 26: 308-317
23. Krakauer JW, Carmichael ST, Corbett D, Wittenberg GF. Getting neurorehabilitation right: what can be learned from animal models?. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012 ; 26: 923-931
24. See J, Dodakian L, Chou C, et al. A standardized approach to the Fugl-Meyer Assessment and its implications for clinical trials. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013 ; 27: 732-741
25. Caliandro P, Celletti C, Padua L, et al. Focal muscle vibration in the treatment of upper limb spasticity: a pilot randomized controlled trial in patients with chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 ; 93: 1656-1661
26. Fabbrini S, Casati G, Bonaiuti D. Is CIMT a rehabilitative practice for everyone? Predictive factors and feasibility. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2014 ;:
27. Patten C, Condliffe EG, Dairaghi CA, Lum PS. Concurrent neuromechanical and functional gains following power training post-stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013 ; 10: 1-19
28. Woodbury M, Velozo CA, Thompson PA, et al. Measurement structure of the Wolf Motor Function Test: implications for motor control theory. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010 ; 24: 791-801
29. Levin ML, Kleim J, Wolf SW. What do motor "recovery" and "compensation" mean in patients following stroke?. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 ; 23: 313-319
30. Lum PS, Mulroy S, Amdur RL, Requejo P, Prilutsky BL, Dromerick AW. Gains in upper extremity function after stroke via recovery or compensation: potential differential effects on amount of real-world limb use. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2009 ; 16: 237-253
31. Michaelsen SM, Jacobs S, Roby-Brami A, Levin MF. Compensation for distal impairments of grasping in adults with hemiparesis. Exp Brain Res. 2004 ; 157: 162-173
32. Shaikh T, Goussev V, Feldman AG, Levin MF. Arm-trunk coordination for beyond-the-reach movement in adults with stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013 ; 28: 355-366
33. Corti M, McGuirk TE, Wu SS, Patten C. Differential effects of power training versus functional task practice on compensation and restoration of arm function after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012 ; 26: 842-854
34. Duff M, Chen Y, Cheng L, et al. Adaptive mixed reality rehabilitation improves quality of reaching movements more than traditional reaching therapy following stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013 ; 27: 306-315