Development and validation of a scale for rating motor compensations used for reaching in patients with hemiparesis: the reaching performance scale (original) (raw)

Abstract

Recent movement analysis studies have described compensatory movement strategies used by people with hemiparesis secondary to stroke during reaching and grasping tasks. The purpose of this article is to describe the development of a new scale--the Reaching Performance Scale (RPS)--for assessing compensatory movements for upper-extremity reaching in people with hemiparesis secondary to stroke. Twenty-eight individuals with hemiparesis, with a mean age of 54.9 years (SD=18.6), participated. The study design involved scale development with expert panels and criterion standards for validity. Participants were evaluated on the new scale as well as other clinical tests for validity. They were videotaped while performing reaching and grasping movements. The RPS scores correlated with measurements of grip force and Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment and Upper Extremity Performance Test for the Elderly (TEMPA) scores. The RPS discriminated patients with different impairment levels according ...

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (51)

  1. Levin MF. Interjoint coordination during pointing movements is disrupted in spastic hemiparesis. Brain. 1996;119:281-294.
  2. Cirstea CM, Levin MF. Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. Brain. 2000;123:940 -953.
  3. Michaelsen SM, Luta A, Roby-Brami A, Levin MF. Effect of trunk restraint on the recovery of reaching movements in hemiparetic patients. Stroke. 2002;32:1875-1883.
  4. Levin MF, Michaelsen SM, Cirstea CM, Roby-Brami A. Use of the trunk for reaching targets placed within and beyond the reach in adult hemiparesis. Exp Brain Res. 2002;143:171-180.
  5. Carr J, Shepherd R. Motor Relearning Program for Stroke. Rockville, Md: Aspen Systems; 1985.
  6. Horak FB. Assumptions underlying motor control for neurologic rehabilitation. In: Contemporary Management of Motor Control Problems: Proceedings of the II STEP Conference. Alexandria, Va: Foundation for Physical Therapy; 1991:11-27.
  7. Bernstein NA, Buravtseva GR. Coordination disorders and the recov- ery of walking biodynamics after cerebrovascular brain injuries. Motor Control. 1998;2:183-186. Original in Russian: Proceedings of the VII Meeting of the Scientific Institute of Neurology of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the USSR, Moscow. 1954:28 -30.
  8. Levin MF. Should stereotypic movement synergies in hemiparetic patients be considered adaptive? Behav Brain Sci. 1996;19:79 -80.
  9. 9 Cirstea CM, Ptito A, Forget R, Levin MF. Arm motor improvement in stroke patients may depend on type of training. Soc Neurosci Abstr. 2000;26:162.
  10. Ada L, Canning CG, Carr JH, Kilbreath SL. Task-specific training of reaching and manipulation. In: Bennett KMB, Castiello U, eds. Insights Into the Reach to Grasp Movement. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier; 1994:239 -264.
  11. Nudo RJ, Wise BM, SiFuentes F, Milliken GW. Neural substrates for the effects of rehabilitative training on motor recovery after ischemic infarct. Science. 1996;272:1791-1794.
  12. Dean DM, Shepherd RB. Task-related training improves perfor- mance of seated reaching tasks after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Stroke. 1997;28:722-728.
  13. Taub E, Wolf SL. Constraint induced movement techniques to facilitate upper extremity use in stroke patients. Top Stroke Rehabil. 1997;3(4):38 -61.
  14. Taub E, Crago JE, Burgio LD, et al. An operant approach to rehabilitation medicine: overcoming learned nonuse by shaping. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994;61:281-293.
  15. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott MH. Motor Control: Theory and Practical Applications. Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins; 1985.
  16. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICFDH). World Health Organization Web site. Available at: http:// www.who.int/classification/icf/intros/ICF-Eng-Intro.pdf). Accessed Sep- tember 2002.
  17. Gentile A. Skill acquisition: action, movement, and neuromotor processes: In: Carr J, Shepherd R, eds. Movement Science: Foundations for Physical Therapy in Rehabilitation. Rockville, Md: Aspen; 1987:93-117.
  18. Wade DT. Measurement in Neurological Rehabilitation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1992:3-174.
  19. Mahoney RI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Maryland State Medical Journal. 1965;14:61-65.
  20. Gowland C, Stratford P, Ward M, et al. Measuring physical impair- ment and disability with the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment. Stroke. 1993;24:58 -63.
  21. Fugl-Meyer AR, Ja ¨a ¨sko ¨L, Leyman I, et al. The post-stroke hemiple- gic patient: a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7:13-31.
  22. 22 Brunnstro ¨m S. Motor testing procedures in hemiplegia: based on sequential recovery stages. Phys Ther. 1966;46:357-375.
  23. Latash ML, Anson JG. What are "normal movements" in atypical populations? Behav Brain Sci. 1996;19:55-106.
  24. Roby-Brami A, Fuchs S, Mokhtari M, Bussel B. Reaching and grasping strategies in hemiparetic patients. Motor Control. 1997;1:72-91.
  25. Sollerman C. Assessment of grip function: evaluation of a new method. MITAB. 1984.
  26. Tiffen J. Purdue Pegboard Examiner Manual. Chicago, Ill: Science Research Associates; 1968.
  27. Minnesota Rate of Manipulation Tests: Examiner's Manual. Circle Pines, Minn: Western Psychological Services; 1969.
  28. Roby-Brami A, Jacobs S, Bennis N, Levin MF. Hand orientation for grasping and arm joint rotation patterns in healthy subjects and hemiparetic stroke patients. Brain Res. 2003;969:217-229.
  29. Levin MF, Hui-Chan CWY. Relief of hemiparetic spasticity by TENS is associated with improvements in reflex and voluntary functions. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1992;82:131-142.
  30. Mathiowetz V, Weber K, Volland G, Kashman N. Reliability and validity of grip and pinch strength evaluations. J Hand Surgery [Am]. 1984;9:222-226.
  31. Desrosiers J, He ´bert R, Dutil E ´, Bravo G. Development and reliabil- ity of an upper extremity function test for the elderly: the TEMPA. Can J Occup Ther. 1993;60:9 -16.
  32. Desrosiers J, He ´bert R, Dutil E ´, et al. Validity of a measurement instrument for upper extremity performance: the TEMPA. Occup Ther J Res. 1994;1:267-281.
  33. 33 Clinical Assessment Recommendations. 2nd ed. Chicago, Ill: American Society of Hand Therapists; 1992.
  34. Bravo G, Potvin L. Estimating the reliability of continuous measures with Cronbach's alpha or the intraclass correlation coefficient: toward the integration of two traditions. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:381-390.
  35. Fleiss JL. The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1995.
  36. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlation: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420 -428.
  37. Cohen JA. Coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1960;20:37-46.
  38. Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1981.
  39. Cohen JA. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provi- sion for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull. 1968;70: 213-220.
  40. Landis JR, Kock GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159 -174.
  41. Nagi S. Some conceptual issues in disability and rehabilitation. In: Sussman, M, ed. Sociology and Rehabilitation. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press; 1965:100.
  42. Nagi S. Disability concepts revisited. In: Pope AM, Tarlov AR, eds. Disability in America: Toward a National Agenda for Prevention. Washing- ton, DC: National Academy Press; 1991:309.
  43. Dannenbaum R, Michaelsen SM, Desrosiers J, Levin MF. Develop- ment and validation of two new sensory tests of the hand for patients with stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16:630 -639.
  44. Levin MF, Dimov M. Spatial coordinates for muscle coactivation and the control of postural stability. Brain Res. 1997;757:43-59.
  45. Levin MF, Selles RW, Verheul MHG, Meijer OG. Deficits in the coordination of agonist and antagonist muscles in stroke patients: implications for normal motor control. Brain Res. 2000;853:352-369.
  46. Loewen SC, Anderson BA. Reliability of the Modified Motor Assess- ment Scale and the Barthel Index. Phys Ther. 1988;68:1077-1081.
  47. Poole JL, Whitney SL. Motor assessment scale for stroke patients: concurrent validity and interrater reliability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988;69:195-197.
  48. Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, Sprangers MAG, et al. Comparison of patient and proxi EORTC QOL-C30 ratings in assessing the quality of life of cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:617-631.
  49. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa, 1: the problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:543-549.
  50. Turner P, Whitfield TW. Physiotherapists' use of evidence based practice: a cross-national study. Physiother Res Int. 1997;2:17-29.
  51. Vanderkooy J, Bach B, Gross A. A clinical effort toward maximizing evidence-based practice. Physiotherapy Canada. Fall 1999:273-279.