medigraphic.com
Academia Mexicana de Neurología, A.C.

2014, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Neuroci 2014; 15 (3)

Validation and use Motor Activity Log and Action Research Arm scales as tools to assess the function of the paretic upper limb after a stroke in clinic and research

Doussoulin-Sanhueza A, Rivas-Sanhueza R

Language: Spanish
References: 40
Page: 138-146
PDF size: 160.79 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: The physical disability and the level of dependence for daily activities that follow a stroke requires validated and standardized instruments to measure objectively the functional status and the impact of interventions on prognosis. The Motor Activity Log (MAL-30) and Action Research Arm (ARA) scales possess these characteristics, currently being the most used in evaluation of the upper extremity.
Objetive: To analyze the psychometric properties and utility of MAL-30 and ARA as tools to assess the function of the paretic upper limb after stroke for the clinical practice and research.
Methods: We performed an observational, longitudinal design with clinimetric performance analysis, with a sample of 80 patients. Two measurements were made, at baseline (time 1) clinical and socio-demographic profile, MAL-30 and ARA was applied. One month later (time 2), MAL-30, ARA and Stroke Impact Scale (SIS 3.0) were applied.
Results: MAL-30 and ARA have adequate internal consistency and temporal stability. In addition, an appropriate construct validity by correlating significantly and in the expected direction between the two instruments and items of SIS 3.0, spasticity, pain, age, educational level and employment status.
Conclusions: The evidence indicates that both MAL-30 and ARA have psychometric properties that make them ideal tools for assessing functional recovery in the paretic arm. However, it is necessary to consider some characteristics of each instrument before defining its clinical use and research properties.


REFERENCES

  1. Nichols-Larsen D, Clark P, Zeringue A, Greenspan A, Blanton S. Factors influencing stroke survivors’ quality of life during subacute recovery. Stroke 2005; 36: 1480-4.

  2. Urton M, Kohia M, Davis J, Neill M. Systematic literature review of treatment interventions for upper extremity hemiparesis following stroke. Occup Ther Int 2007; 14: 11-27.

  3. Desrosiers J, Bourbonnais D, Corriveau H, Gosselin S, Bravo G. Effectiveness of unilateral and symmetrical bilateral task training for arm during the subacute phase after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2005; 19: 581-93.

  4. Patten C, Kothari D, Whitney J, Lexell J, Lum P. Reliability and responsiveness of elbow trajectory tracking in chronic poststroke hemiparesis. J Rehabil Res Dev 2003; 40: 487-500.

  5. Bonaiuti D, Rebasti L, Sioli P. The constraint induced movement therapy: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials on the adult stroke patients. Eura Medicophys 2007; 43: 139-46.

  6. Bowman M, Taub E, Uswatte G, Delgado A, Bryson C, Morris D, et al. A treatment for a chronic stroke patient with a plegic hand combining CI therapy with conventional rehabilitation procedures: case report. NeuroRehabilitation 2006; 21: 167-76.

  7. van der Lee J, Beckerman H, Knol D, de Vet H, Bouter L. Clinimetric properties of the motor activity log for the assessment of arm use in hemiparetic patients. Stroke 2004; 35: 1410-4.

  8. Uswatte G, Taub E, Morris D, Light K, Thompson P. The Motor Activity Log-28: assessing daily use of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. Neurology 2006; 67: 1189-94.

  9. 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;36:2493-6.

  10. Taub E, Uswatte G, King D, Morris D, Crago J, Chatterjee A. A placebo-controlled trial of constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremity after stroke. Stroke 2006;37:1045-9.

  11. Doussoulin AR, R.; Campos, V. Validación de “Action Research Arm Test” (ARAT) en pacientes con extremidad superior parética post ataque cerebro vascular en Chile. Revista Médica de Chile 2012; 140: 59-65.

  12. Koh C, Hsueh I, Wang W, Sheu C, Yu T, Wang C, et al. Validation of the action research arm test using item response theory in patients after stroke. J Rehabil Med 2006; 38: 375-80.

  13. Yozbatiran N, Der-Yeghiaian L, Cramer S. A standardized approach to performing the action research arm test. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007; 22: 78-90.

  14. Duncan P, Wallace D, Lai S, Johnson D, Embretson S, Laster L. The stroke impact scale version 2.0 - Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke 1999; 30: 2131-40.

  15. Brislin R. Traslation and content analysis of oral and written material. In: Triandis CBJ (ed.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon 1980; 389-444.

  16. Werner OCD. Translating working through interpreters, and the problem of decentering. In: Narroll RCR (ed.). A handbook of method in cultural anthropology. Nueva York: American Museum of Natural History Press 1970; 398-420.

  17. Waninge A, Rook RA, Dijkhuizen A, Gielen E, van der Schans CP. Feasibility, test-retest reliability, and interrater reliability of the Modified Ashworth Scale and Modified Tardieu Scale in persons with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. Res Dev Disabil 2011; 32: 613-20.

  18. Agredo C, Bedoya J. Validación Escala de Ashworth Modificada. efisioterpianet [serial on the Internet]. 2005.

  19. Lazaro C, Caseras X, Torrubia R, Banos JE. Measurement of postoperative pain: analysis of the sensitivity of various self-evaluation instruments. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 2003; 50: 230-6.

  20. Riedemann P. Clinimetría: Aspectos Generales sobre medición en enfermedades musculoesqueléticas. Revista Chilena de Reumatología 2001; 17: 173-8.

  21. Giménez-Roldán SNM, Navarro E, Dobato JL, Giménez-Zuccarelli M. Examen del estado Mini-Mental: propuesta de una normativa para su aplicación. Rev Neurol 1997; 25: 576-83.

  22. Adimark. Manual de Aplicación:El nivel socioeconómico. Santiago: ESOMAR; 2000.

  23. Streiner D. Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess 2003; 80: 99-103.

  24. Glader E, Stegmayr, R, Asplund K. Poststroke fatigue: a 2 year followup study of stroke patient in Sweden. Stroke 2003; 33: 1327-33.

  25. Kugler C, Altenhöner T, Lochner P, Ferbert A. Does age influence early recovery from ischemic stroke? A study from the Hessian Stroke Data Bank. J Neurol 2003; 250: 676-81.

  26. 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;36:2493-6.

  27. van der Lee J, Roorda L, Beckerman H, Lankhorst G, Bouter L. Improving the Action Research Arm test: a unidimensional hierarchical scale. Clin Rehabil 2002;16:646-53.

  28. Malhotra S, Pandyan AD, Rosewilliam S, Roffe C, Hermens H. Spasticity and contractures at the wrist after stroke: time course of development and their association with functional recovery of the upper limb. Clin Rehabil 2011; 25: 184-91.

  29. Snels IA, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. Treatment of hemiplegic shoulder pain in the Netherlands: results of a national survey. Clin Rehabil 2000; 14: 20-7.

  30. Ward N, Frackowiak R. Age-related changes in the neural correlates of motor performance. Brain 2003; 126: 873-88.

  31. Leung DP, Ng AK, Fong KN. Effect of small group treatment of the modified constraint induced movement therapy for clients with chronic stroke in a community setting. Hum Mov Sci 2009; 28: 798-808.

  32. Cortina J. What is coefficient alfa? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol 1993; 78: 98-104.

  33. Van der Lee J, De Groot V, Beckerman H, Wagenaar R, Lankhorst G, Bouter L. 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: 14-9.34. Nijland R, van

  34. Wegen E, Verbunt J, van Wijk R, van Kordelaar J, Kwakkel G. A comparison of two validated tests for upper limb function after stroke: The Wolf Motor Function Test and the Action Research Arm Test. J Rehabil Med 2010; 42: 694-6.

  35. Platz T, Pinkowski C, van Wijck F, Kim I, 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: 404-11.

  36. Nowak DA, Hermsdorfer J. Objective evaluation of manual performance deficits in neurological movement disorders. Brain Res Rev 2006; 51: 108-24.

  37. Taub E, Miller N, Novack T, Cook Er, Fleming W, Nepomuceno C, et al. Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 74: 347-54.

  38. 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: 1189-94.

  39. Park SW, Wolf SL, Blanton S, Winstein C, Nichols-Larsen DS. The EXCITE Trial: Predicting a clinically meaningful motor activity log outcome. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 200; 22: 486-93.

  40. Dodds TA, Martin DP, Stolov WC, Deyo RA. A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 74: 531-6.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com