[Abstract+References] Do Activity Level Outcome Measures Commonly Used in Neurological Practice Assess Upper-Limb Movement Quality? 

Background. Movement is described in terms of task-related end point characteristics in external space and movement quality (joint rotations in body space). Assessment of upper-limb (UL) movement quality can assist therapists in designing effective treatment approaches for retraining lost motor elements and provide more detailed measurements of UL motor improvements over time.

Objective. To determine the extent to which current activity level outcome measures used in neurological practice assess UL movement quality.

Methods. Outcome measures assessing arm/hand function at the International Classification of Function activity level recommended by neurological clinical practice guidelines were reviewed. Measures assessing the UL as part of a general mobility assessment, those strictly evaluating body function/structure or participation, and paediatric measures were excluded. Results. In all, 15 activity level outcome measures were identified; 9 measures assess how movement is performed by measuring either end point characteristics or movement quality. However, except for the Reaching Performance Scale for Stroke and the Motor Evaluation Scale for Upper Extremity in Stroke Patients, these measures only account for deficits indirectly by giving a partial score if movements are slower or if the person experiences difficulties. Six outcome measures neither assess any parameters related to movement quality, nor distinguish between improvements resulting from motor compensation or recovery of desired movement strategies.

Conclusion. Current activity measures may not distinguish recovery from compensation and adequately track changes in movement quality over time. Movement quality may be incorporated into clinical assessment using observational kinematics with or without low-cost motion tracking technology.

1. World Health Organization. Neurological Disorders: Public Health Challenges. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press; 2006. Google Scholar
2. Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Ahmed S, . Disablement following stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 1999;21(5-6):258268. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
3. Alt Murphy M, Häger CK. Kinematic analysis of the upper extremity after stroke: how far have we reached and what have we grasped? Phys Ther Rev. 2015;20:137155. Google Scholar CrossRef
4. Cirstea M, Levin MF. Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. Brain. 2000;123:940953. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
5. Lang CE, Wagner JM, Bastian AJ, . Deficits in grasp versus reach during acute hemiparesis. Exp Brain Res. 2005;166:126136. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
6. Levin MF, Liebermann DG, Parmet Y, Berman S. Compensatory versus noncompensatory shoulder movements used for reaching in stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016;30:635646. Google Scholar Link
7. Hendricks HT, van Limbeek J, Geurts AC, Zwarts MJ. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:16291637. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
8. Sommerfeld DK, Eek EU-B, Svensson A-K, Holmqvist LW, von Arbin MH. Spasticity after stroke its occurrence and association with motor impairments and activity limitations. Stroke. 2004;35:134139. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
9. Chen SY, Winstein CJ. A systematic review of voluntary arm recovery in hemiparetic stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2009;33:213. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
10. Maynard FM, Bracken MB, Creasey GJ, . International standards for neurological and functional classification of spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 1997;35:266374. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
11. Pickett GE, Campos-Benitez M, Keller JL, Duggal N. Epidemiology of traumatic spinal cord injury in Canada. Spine. 2006;31:799805. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
12. Katz DI, Alexander MP, Klein RB. Recovery of arm function in patients with paresis after traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79:488493. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
13. Kister I, Bacon TE, Chamot E, . Natural history of multiple sclerosis symptoms. Int J MS Care. 2013;15:146156. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
14. Desrosiers J, Malouin F, Bourbonnais D, Richards CL, Rochette A, Bravo G. Arm and leg impairments and disabilities after stroke rehabilitation: relation to handicap. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17:666673. Google Scholar Link
15. Johansson S, Ytterberg C, Claesson IM, . High concurrent presence of disability in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol. 2007;254:767773. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
16. Byblow WD, Stinear CM, Barber PA, Petoe MA, Ackerley SJ. Proportional recovery after stroke depends on corticomotor integrity. Ann Neurol. 2015;78:848859. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
17. Prabhakaran S, Zarahn E, Riley C, . Inter-individual variability in the capacity for motor recovery after ischemic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22:6471. Google Scholar Link
18. Veerbeek JM, van Wegen E, van Peppen R, . What is the evidence for physical therapy poststroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e87987. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
19. Stinear CM, Barber PA, Petoe MA, Anwar S, Byblow WD. The PREP algorithm predicts potential for upper limb recovery after stroke. Brain. 2012;135:25272535. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
20. Levin MF, Kleim JA, Wolf SL. What do motor “recovery” and “compensation” mean in patients following stroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:313319. Google Scholar Link
21. Levin MF, Desrosiers J, Beauchemin D, Bergeron N, Rochette A. Development and validation of a scale for rating motor compensations used for reaching in patients with hemiparesis: the reaching performance scale. Phys Ther. 2004;84:822. Google Scholar Medline
22. Jolkkonen J, Kwakkel G. Translational hurdles in stroke recovery studies. Transl Stroke Res. 2016;7:331342. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
23. Kitago T, Krakauer JW. Motor learning principles for neurorehabilitation. Handb Clin Neurol. 2013;110:93103. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
24. Johansson GM, Häger CK. Measurement properties of the Motor Evaluation Scale for Upper Extremity in Stroke patients (MESUPES). Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34:288294. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
25. Subramanian SK, Yamanaka J, Chilingaryan G, Levin MF. Validity of movement pattern kinematics as measures of arm motor impairment poststroke. Stroke. 2010;41:23032308. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
26. Salter K, Campbell N, Richardson M, . Outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation. In: Heart and Stroke Foundation, Canadian Partnership for Stroke Recovery, ed. Evidence-Based Review of Stroke Rehabilitation. Ottawa, Canada: Heart and Stroke Foundation, Canadian Partnership for Stroke Recovery; 2015;1141. Google Scholar
27. Potter K, Cohen ET, Allen DD, . Outcome measures for individuals with multiple sclerosis: recommendations from the American Physical Therapy Association Neurology Section Task Force. Phys Ther. 2014;94:593608. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
28. Kahn J, Newman C, Palma P, . Spinal Cord Injury EDGE Taskforce outcome measures recommendations. http://www.neuropt.org/docs/sci-edge-/sci-edge-complete-recommendations.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed March 3, 2017.
29. Zipp GP, Sullivan JE, Rose D, . StrokEDGE task force outcome measures recommendations. http://www.neuropt.org/docs/stroke-sig/strokeedge_taskforce_summary_document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed March 3, 2017.
30. McCulloch KL, de Joya A, Donnelly E, . TBI EDGE outcome measures for in- and out-patient rehabilitation. http://www.neuropt.org/docs/tbi-edge/tbi-edge-rehab-1-page.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed March 18, 2016.
31. Mathiowetz V, Volland G, Kashman N, Weber K. Adult norms for the Box and Block Test of manual dexterity. Am J Occup Ther. 1985;39:386391. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
32. Jebsen RH, Taylor N, Trieschmann RB, Trotter MJ, Howard LA. An objective and standardized test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1969;50:311319. Google Scholar Medline
33. Fischer J, Rudick R, Cutter G, Reingold S. The Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite measure (MSFC): an integrated approach to MS clinical outcome assessment. Mult Scler. 1999;5:244250. Google Scholar Link
34. Mathiowetz V, Weber K, Kashman N, Volland G. Adult norms for the Nine Hole Peg Test of finger dexterity. OTJR (Thorofare N J). 1985;5:2438. Google Scholar Link
35. Grice KO, Vogel KA, Le V, Mitchell A, Muniz S, Vollmer MA. Adult norms for a commercially available Nine Hole Peg Test for finger dexterity. Am J Occup Ther. 2003;57:570573. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
36. Chae J, Labatia I, Yang G. Upper limb motor function in hemiparesis: concurrent validity of the Arm Motor Ability test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;82:18. Google Scholar CrossRef
37. Kopp B, Kunkel A, Flor H, . The Arm Motor Ability Test: reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of an instrument for assessing disabilities in activities of daily living. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:615620. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
38. Hsueh I-P, Lee M-M, Hsieh C-L. The Action Research Arm Test: is it necessary for patients being tested to sit at a standardized table? Clin Rehabil. 2002;16:382388. Google Scholar Link
39. Chen H-F, Lin K-C, Wu C-Y, Chen C-L. Rasch validation and predictive validity of the Action Research Arm Test in patients receiving stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:10391045. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
40. Barreca S, Gowland C, Stratford P, . Development of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory: theoretical constructs, item generation, and selection. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2004;11(4):3142. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
41. Barreca SR, Stratford PW, Masters LM, Lambert CL, Griffiths J, McBay C. Validation of three shortened versions of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory. Physiother Can. 2006;58:148156. Google Scholar CrossRef
42. Keith R, Granger C, Hamilton B, Sherwin F. The functional independence measure. Adv Clin Rehabil. 1987;1:618. Google Scholar Medline
43. De Souza L, Hewer R, Miller S. Assessment of recovery of arm control in hemiplegic stroke patients: 1. Arm function tests. Int Rehabil Med. 1980;2:39. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
44. Van de, Winckel A, Feys H, van der Knaap S, . Can quality of movement be measured? Rasch analysis and inter-rater reliability of the Motor Evaluation Scale for Upper Extremity in Stroke Patients (MESUPES). Clin Rehabil. 2006;20:871884. Google Scholar Link
45. Sollerman C, Ejeskär A. Sollerman hand function test: a standardised method and its use in tetraplegic patients. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg Suppl. 1995;29:167176. Google Scholar CrossRef
46. Spinal Cord Injury Research Evidence (SCIRE) Project Research Team. Spinal cord injury research evidence: outcome measures. https://www.scireproject.com/outcome-measures. Accessed March 12, 2016.
47. Desrosiers J, Hébert R, Bravo G, Dutil É. Upper extremity performance test for the elderly (TEMPA): normative data and correlates with sensorimotor parameters. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76:11251129. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
48. Feys P, Duportail M, Kos D, Van Aschand P, Ketelaer P. Validity of the TEMPA for the measurement of upper limb function in multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16:166173. Google Scholar Link
49. Desrosiers J. TEMPA evaluation kit. 2002. http://www.physipro.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/TEMPA_EN.pdf Accessed May 31, 2017. Google Scholar
50. 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;32:16351639. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
51. Penta M, Tesio L, Arnould C, Zancan A, Thonnard J-L. The ABILHAND questionnaire as a measure of manual ability in chronic stroke patients Rasch-based validation and relationship to upper limb impairment. Stroke. 2001;32:16271634. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
52. Penta M, Thonnard J-L, Tesio L. ABILHAND: a Rasch-built measure of manual ability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79:10381042. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
53. Gustafsson S, Stibrant Sunnerhagen K, Dahlin-Ivanoff S. Occupational therapists’ and patients’ perceptions of ABILHAND, a new assessment tool for measuring manual ability. Scand J Occup Ther. 2004;11:107117. Google Scholar CrossRef
54. Marino RJ, Shea JA, Stineman MG. The Capabilities of Upper Extremity Instrument: reliability and validity of a measure of functional limitation in tetraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79:15121521. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
55. Oleson C, Marino R. Responsiveness and concurrent validity of the revised Capabilities of Upper Extremity-Questionnaire (CUE-Q) in patients with acute tetraplegia. Spinal Cord. 2014;52:625628. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
56. Taub E, Miller NE, Novack TA, . Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:347354. Google Scholar Medline
57. 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;67:11891194. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
58. 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;36:24932496. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
59. McCrea PH, Eng JJ, Hodgson AJ. Biomechanics of reaching: clinical implications for individuals with acquired brain injury. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24:534541. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
60. Rodrigues MR, Slimovitch M, Chilingaryan G, Levin MF. Does the Finger-to-Nose test measure upper limb coordination in chronic stroke? J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017;14:6. doi: 10.1186/s12984-016-0213-y. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
61. Desrosiers J, Hébert R, Dutil E, Bravo G. Development and reliability of an upper extremity function test for the elderly: the TEMPA. Can J Occup Ther. 1993;60:916. Google Scholar Link
62. Michaelsen SM, Luta A, Roby-Brami A, Levin MF. Effect of trunk restraint on the recovery of reaching movements in hemiparetic patients. Stroke. 2001;32:18751883. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
63. Ali M, Lyden P, Brady M. Aphasia and dysarthria in acute stroke: recovery and functional outcome. Int J Stroke. 2015;10:400406. Google Scholar Link
64. Douiri A, Rudd AG, Wolfe CD. Prevalence of poststroke cognitive impairment South London stroke register 1995-2010. Stroke. 2013;44:138145. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
65. Woodbury ML, Velozo CA, Richards LG, Duncan PW, Studenski S, Lai S-M. Longitudinal stability of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the upper extremity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:15631569. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
66. Lemmens RJ, Timmermans AA, Janssen-Potten YJ, Smeets RJ, Seelen HA. Valid and reliable instruments for arm-hand assessment at ICF activity level in persons with hemiplegia: a systematic review. BMC Neurol. 2012;12:21. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
67. Bernhardt J, Bate PJ, Matyas TA. Accuracy of observational kinematic assessment of upper-limb movements. Phys Ther. 1998;78:259270. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
68. Adams RJ, Lichter MD, Krepkovich ET, Ellington A, White M, Diamond PT. Assessing upper extremity motor function in practice of virtual activities of daily living. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2015;23:287296. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
69. Ozturk A, Tartar A, Huseyinsinoglu BE, Ertas AH. A clinically feasible kinematic assessment method of upper extremity motor function impairment after stroke. Measurement. 2016;80:207216. Google Scholar CrossRef
70. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall; 2009. Google Scholar
71. Platz T, Pinkowski C, van Wijck F, Kim IH, 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;19:404411. Google Scholar Link
72. Chen HM, Chen CC, Hsueh IP, Huang SL, Hsieh CL. Test-retest reproducibility and smallest real difference of 5 hand function tests in patients with stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:435440. Google Scholar Link
73. Beebe JA, Lang CE. Relationships and responsiveness of six upper extremity function tests during the first 6 months of recovery after stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2009;33:96. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
74. Ferreiro KN, dos Santos RL, Conforto AB. Pyschometric properties of the Portuguese version of the Jebsen-Taylor test for adults with mild hemiparesis. Rev Bras Fisioter. 2010;14:377381. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
75. Hackel ME, Wolfe GA, Bang SM, Canfield JS. Changes in hand function in the aging adult as determined by the Jebsen Test of Hand Function. Phys Ther. 1992;72:373377. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
76. Lin KC, Chuang LL, Wu CY, Hsieh YW, Chang WY. Responsiveness and validity of three dexterous function measures in stroke rehabilitation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010;47:563571. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
77. Parker VM, Wade DT, Hewer RL. Loss of arm function after stroke: measurement, frequency, and recovery. Int Rehabil Med. 1986;8:6973. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
78. Heller AN, Wade DT, Wood VA, Sunderland A, Hewer RL, Ward E. Arm function after stroke: measurement and recovery over the first three months. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1987;50:714719. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
79. O’Dell MW, Kim G, Rivera L, . A psychometric evaluation of the Arm Motor Ability Test. J Rehabil Med. 2013;45:519527. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
80. Yozbatiran N, Der-Yeghiaian L, Cramer SC. A standardized approach to performing the Action Research Arm Test. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22:7890. Google Scholar Link
81. Nijland R, van 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;42:694696. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
82. Van der Lee JH, De Groot V, Beckerman H, Wagenaar RC, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. 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. 200;82:1419. CrossRef, Medline
83. Barreca SR, Stratford PW, Lambert CL, Masters LM, Streiner DL. Test-retest reliability, validity, and sensitivity of the Chedoke arm and hand activity inventory: a new measure of upper-limb function for survivors of stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:16161622. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
84. Subramanian SK, Banina M, Chilingaryan G, Levin MF. Reaching Performance Scale for stroke: test-retest reliability and concurrent and discriminant validity in individuals with chronic stroke. Paper presented at: World Congress of Neurological Rehabilitation; May 2016; Philadelphia, PA.
85. Fattal C. Motor capacities of upper limbs in tetraplegics: a new scale for the assessment of the results of functional surgery on upper limbs. Spinal Cord. 2004;42:8090. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
86. Brogardh C, Persson A, Sjolund B. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of the Sollerman hand function test in patients with chronic stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29:145154. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
87. Michaelsen SM, Natalio MA, Silva AG, Pagnussat AS. Reliability of the translation and adaptation of the Test d’Évaluation des Membres Supérieurs des Personnes Âgées (TEMPA) to the Portuguese language and validation for adults with hemiparesis. Braz J Phys Ther. 2008;12:511519. Google Scholar CrossRef
88. Whitall J, Savin DN, 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;87:656660. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
89. 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;82:750755. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
90. Simone A, Rota V, Tesio L, Perucca L. Generic ABILHAND questionnaire can measure manual ability across a variety of motor impairments. Int J Rehabil Res. 2011;34:131140. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
91. Kalsi-Ryan S, Beaton D, Curt A, . The Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength Sensibility and Prehension: reliability and validity. J Neurotrauma. 2012;29:905914. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
92. Van der Lee J, Beckerman H, Knol DL, de Vet HC, Bouter LM. Clinimetric properties of the motor activity log for the assessment of arm use in hemiparetic patients. Stroke. 2004;35:14101414. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline

Source: Do Activity Level Outcome Measures Commonly Used in Neurological Practice Assess Upper-Limb Movement Quality?Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair – Marika Demers, Mindy F. Levin, 2017


, , , , , , ,

  1. Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: