Performance of Upper Limb module for Duchenne muscular dystrophy

Anna G Mayhew, Giorgia Coratti, Elena Stacy Mazzone, Katrijn Klingels, Meredith James, Marika Pane, Volker Straub, Natalie Goemans, Eugenio Mercuri, Pul Working Group, Valeria Ricotti, Francesco Muntoni, Deborah Ridout, Victoria Selby, Anna G Mayhew, Giorgia Coratti, Elena Stacy Mazzone, Katrijn Klingels, Meredith James, Marika Pane, Volker Straub, Natalie Goemans, Eugenio Mercuri, Pul Working Group, Valeria Ricotti, Francesco Muntoni, Deborah Ridout, Victoria Selby

Abstract

Aim: To report the differences between Performance of Upper Limb (PUL) versions 1.2 and 2.0, compare the measurement ability of the two versions, and compare their longitudinal performance in Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Method: Rasch analysis was performed on the dual data from three centres to confirm whether the two scales measure the same construct. Change scores in natural history for the different domains were compared for the two versions.

Results: Rasch analysis demonstrated that both versions measure the same construct and that the PUL 2.0 was a better fit to the construct of motor performance and better able to detect change at 12 months in all levels of ability than the PUL 1.2. This was also true when change scores were reviewed over 2 years.

Interpretation: Our results confirm that the PUL 1.2 and 2.0 versions detect change in all domains over 2 years. They also demonstrate that simplifying the original scoring of the PUL 1.2 for the revised PUL 2.0 maintains the validity of the construct and enhances the scale measurement qualities.

What this paper adds: The original and revised Performance of Upper Limb (PUL) scales measure the same construct. Both scales detected change in all domains over 2 years. The PUL 2.0 enhances the measurement qualities of the scale.

© 2019 Mac Keith Press.

References

    1. Mercuri E, McDonald C, Mayhew A, et al. International workshop on assessment of upper limb function in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Rome, 15-16 February 2012. Neuromuscul Disord 2012; 22: 1025-8.
    1. Mazzone ES, Vasco G, Palermo C, et al. A critical review of functional assessment tools for upper limbs in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2012; 54: 879-85.
    1. Mayhew A, Mazzone ESE, Eagle M, et al. Development of the performance of the upper limb module for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2013; 55: 1038-45.
    1. Pane M, Mazzone ES, Fanelli L, et al. Reliability of the performance of upper limb assessment in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neuromuscul Disord 2014; 24: 201-6.
    1. Pane M, Mazzone ES, Sivo S, et al. The 6 minute walk test and performance of upper limb in ambulant Duchenne muscular dystrophy boys. PLoS Curr 2014; 6.
    1. Pane M, Fanelli L, Mazzone ES, et al. Benefits of glucocorticoids in non-ambulant boys/men with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a multicentric longitudinal study using the performance of upper limb test. Neuromuscul Disord 2015; 25: 749-53.
    1. Klingels K, Mayhew AG, Mazzone ES, et al. Development of a patient-reported outcome measure for upper limb function in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: DMD upper limb PROM. Dev Med Child Neurol 2017; 59: 224-31.
    1. Pane M, Coratti G, Brogna C, et al. Upper limb function in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: 24 month longitudinal data. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0199223.
    1. Hobart J, Cano S. Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: the role of new psychometric methods. Health Technol Assess 2009; 13: iii, ix-x, 1-177.
    1. Andrich D. Distinctions between assumptions and requirements in measurement in the social sciences. In Keats JA, Taft R, Heath RA, Lovibond SH, editors. Proceedings of the XXIVth International Congress of Psychology. North Holland: Elsevier Science Publications BV, 1989: 7-16.76.
    1. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297-334.
    1. Hobart JC, Cano SJ, Zajicek JP, Thompson AJ. Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: problems, solutions, and recommendations. Lancet Neurol 2007; 6: 1094-105.
    1. Boone WJ. Rasch analysis for instrument development: why, when, and how?. CBE Life Sci Educ 2016; 15: rm4.
    1. Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating Scale Analysis. Chicago, IL: Mesa Press, 1982.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren