Issues in selecting outcome measures to assess functional recovery after stroke

Sharon Barak, Pamela W Duncan, Sharon Barak, Pamela W Duncan

Abstract

Most patients who survive a stroke experience some degree of physical recovery. Selecting the appropriate outcome measure to assess physical recovery is a difficult task, given the heterogeneity of stroke etiology, symptoms, severity, and even recovery itself. Despite these complexities, a number of strategies can facilitate the selection of functional outcome measures in stroke clinical trial research and practice. Clinical relevance in stroke outcome measures can be optimized by incorporating a framework of health and disability, such as the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). The ICF provides the conceptual basis for measurement and policy formulations for disability and health assessment. All outcome measures selected should also have sound psychometric properties. The essential psychometric properties are reliability, validity, responsiveness, sensibility, and established minimal clinically important difference. It is also important to establish the purpose of the measurement (discriminative, predictive, or evaluative) and to determine whether the purpose of the study is to evaluate the efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention. In addition, when selecting outcome measures and time of assessment, the natural history of stroke and stroke severity must be regarded. Finally, methods for acquiring data must also be considered. We present a comprehensive overview of the issues in selecting stroke outcome measures and characterize existing measures relative to these issues.

References

    1. American Heart Association. 2001 heart and stroke statistical update. Dallas, TX, 2000.
    1. Duncan PW, Goldstein LB, Matchar D, Divine GW, Feussner J. Measurement of motor recovery after stroke: outcome assessment and sample size requirements. Stroke. 1992;23:1084–1089. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.23.8.1084.
    1. Loewen SC, Anderson BA. Predictors of stroke outcome using objective measurement scales. Stroke. 1990;21:78–81. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.21.1.78.
    1. Wade DT, Wood VA, Hewer RL. Recovery after stroke: the first 3 months. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1985;48:7–13. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.48.1.7.
    1. Kinsella G, Ford B. Acute recovery from patterns in stroke patients: neuropsychological factors. Med J Aust. 1980;2:663–666.
    1. Roberts L, Counsell C. Assessment of clinical outcomes in acute stroke trials. Stroke. 1998;29:986–991. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.29.5.986.
    1. Duncan PW. Measuring recovery of function after stroke: clinical and measurement issues in selecting stroke outcome measures in clinical trials. In: Goldstein LB, editor. Restorative neurology: advances in pharmacotherapy for recovery after stroke. New York: Futura Publishing; 1998. pp. 225–240.
    1. Jorgensen HS, Pedersen PM, Kammersgaard L, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS. Epidemiology of stroke related disability. In: Duncan PW, editor. Clinics in geriatric medicine: stroke. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1999. pp. 785–800.
    1. Bergner M, Rothman ML. Health status measures: an overview and guide for selection. Annu Rev Public Health. 1987;8:191–210. doi: 10.1146/annurev.pu.08.050187.001203.
    1. Stewart AL. Psychometric consideration in functional status instruments. In: WONCA Classification Committee, editor. Functional status measurement in primary care. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1990.
    1. Kirwan JR. Minimum clinically important difference: the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow? J Rheumatol. 2001;28:439–444.
    1. Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18:419–423. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200018050-00001.
    1. Bellamy N, Carr A, Dougados M, Shea B, Wells G. Towards a definition of “difference” in osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:427–430.
    1. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2:i–iv.
    1. Kirshner B, Guyatt GH. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38:27–36. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(85)90005-0.
    1. Jorgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Vive-Larsen J, Stoier M, Olsen TS. Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke. Part ii: Time course of recovery. The Copenhagen stroke study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76:406–412. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(95)80568-0.
    1. Duncan PW, Lai SM, Keighley J. Defining post-stroke recovery: implications for design and interpretation of drug trials. Neuropharmacology. 2000;39:835–841. doi: 10.1016/S0028-3908(00)00003-4.
    1. March JS, Silva SG, Compton S, Shapiro M, Califf R, Krishnan R. The case for practical clinical trials in psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162:836–846. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.5.836.
    1. Devuyst G, Bogousslavsky J. Recent progress in drug treatment for acute stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999;67:420–425. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.67.4.420.
    1. Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable II Recommendations for clinical trial evaluation of acute stroke therapies. Stroke. 2001;32:1598–1606. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.32.7.1598.
    1. Fuhrer MJ. Overview of clinical trials in medical rehabilitation: impetuses, challenges, and needed future directions. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;82:S8–S15. doi: 10.1097/01.PHM.0000086995.80644.D7.
    1. Schoenwald SK, Hoagwood K. Effectiveness, transportability, and dissemination of interventions: what matters when? Psychiatr Serv. 2001;52:1190–1197. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.52.9.1190.
    1. Burns BJ. Children and evidence-based practice. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2003;26:955–970. doi: 10.1016/S0193-953X(03)00071-6.
    1. Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, Foley NC, Bitensky J. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF body functions. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:191–207. doi: 10.1080/09638280400008537.
    1. Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, Foley NC, Bitensky J, Bayley M. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF participation. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:507–528. doi: 10.1080/0963828040008552.
    1. Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, Foley NC, Bitensky J, Bayley M. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF activity. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:315–340. doi: 10.1080/09638280400008545.
    1. International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) Geneva: WHO; 2001. pp. 3–25.
    1. Duncan PW, Jorgensen HS, Wade DT. Outcome measures in acute stroke trials: a systematic review and some recommendations to improve practice. Stroke. 2000;31:1429–1438. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.31.6.1429.
    1. Hack W, Kaste M, Bogousslavsky J, et al. European stroke initiative recommendations for stroke management-update 2003. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2003;16:311–337. doi: 10.1159/000072554.
    1. Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, Johnson D, Embretson S, Laster LJ. The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke. 1999;30:2131–2140. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.30.10.2131.
    1. de Haan R, Aaronson N, Limburg M, Hewer RL, van Crevel H. Measuring quality of life in stroke. Stroke. 1993;24:320–327. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.24.2.320.
    1. Glass TA, Matchar DB, Belyea M, Feussner JR. Impact of social support on outcome in first stroke. Stroke. 1993;24:64–70. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.24.1.64.
    1. Gray DB, Hollingsworth HH, Stark SL, Morgan KA. Participation survey/mobility: psychometric properties of a measure of participation for people with mobility impairments and limitations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:189–197. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.09.014.
    1. Shumaker SA, Anderson RT, Czajkowski SM. Psychological tests and scales. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life assessments in clinical trials. New York: Raven Press; 1990. pp. 95–113.
    1. Hsieh LP, Kao HJ. Depressive symptoms following ischemic stroke: a study of 207 patients. Acta Neurol Taiwan. 2005;14:187–190.
    1. Yesavage JA, Brink TL, Rose TL, et al. Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. J Psychiatr Res. 1982;17:37–49. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(82)90033-4.
    1. Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelson M, Mock J, Erbaugh J. An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1961;4:561–571. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1961.01710120031004.
    1. Radlof LS. The CES-D scale: a self report depression scale for research in the general population. J Appl Psychol Meas. 1977;1:385–401. doi: 10.1177/014662167700100306.
    1. Evans RL, Bishop DS, Matlock AL, Stranahan S, Smith GG, Halar EM. Family interaction and treatment adherence after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1987;68:513–517.
    1. Geyh S, Cieza A, Schouten J, et al. ICF core sets for stroke. J Rehabil Med 2004; 135–141.
    1. Duncan PW, Zorowitz R, Bates B, et al. Management of adult stroke rehabilitation care: a clinical practice guideline [online] Stroke. 2005;36:el00–el43. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000180861.54180.FF.
    1. Gresham GE. Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Guideline Panel. Post-stroke rehabilitation: clinical practice guideline no. 16. DHHS Publication AHCPR 95-0662. Washington, DC: U.S Government Printing Office; 1995.
    1. Turner RR. Rehabilitation: issues in functional assessment. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996. pp. 839–851.
    1. Higgins PA, Straub AJ. Understanding the error of our ways: mapping the concepts of validity and reliability. Nurs Outlook. 2006;54:23–29. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2004.12.004.
    1. Andresen EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81:S15–S20. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2000.20619.
    1. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2000. Reliability; pp. 79–110.
    1. Blackburn M, van Vliet P, Mockett SP. Reliability of measurements obtained with the Modified Ashworth scale in the lower extremities of people with stroke. Phys Ther. 2002;82:25–34.
    1. Heitzmann CA, Kaplan RM. Assessment of methods for measuring social support. Health Psychol. 1998;7:75–109. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.7.1.75.
    1. English CK, Hillier SL, Stiller K, Warden-Flood A. The sensitivity of three commonly used outcome measures to detect change amongst patients receiving inpatient rehabilitation following stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20:52–55. doi: 10.1191/0269215506cr877oa.
    1. Houlden H, Edwards M, McNeil J, Greenwood R. Use of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure during early inpatient rehabilitation after single incident brain injury. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20:153–159. doi: 10.1191/0269215506cr917oa.
    1. Wallace D, Duncan PW, Lai SM. Comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the motor component of the Functional Independence Measure in stroke: the impact of using different methods for measuring responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:922–928. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00410-9.
    1. Hsueh IP, Lin JH, Jeng JS, Hsieh CL. Comparison of the psychometric characteristics of the Functional Independence Measure, 5 item Barthel Index, and 10 item Barthel Index in patients with stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002;73:188–190. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.73.2.188.
    1. Lorentz WJ, Scanlan JM, Borson S. Brief screening tests for dementia. Can J Psychiatry. 2002;47:723–733.
    1. Guyatt GH, Cook DJ. Health status, quality of life, and the individual. JAMA. 1994;272:630–631. doi: 10.1001/jama.1994.03520080072047.
    1. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6.
    1. Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002;14:109–114. doi: 10.1097/00002281-200203000-00006.
    1. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Validity of measurements. In: Mehalik C, editor. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2000. pp. 79–110.
    1. Berg KO, Wood-Dauphinee SL, Williams JI, Maki B. Measuring balance in the elderly: validation of an instrument. Can J Public Health. 1992;83:S7–S11.
    1. Murray GD, Barer D, Choi S, et al. Design and analysis of phase III trials with ordered outcome scales: the concept of the sliding dichotomy. J Neurotrauma. 2005;22:511–517. doi: 10.1089/neu.2005.22.511.
    1. Guyatt GH, Jaeschke R, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measurements in clinical trials: choosing the right approach. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996. pp. 41–49.
    1. Gravetter FJ, Wallnau LB. Hypothesis tests with two independent samples. In: Knight V, Stoddard F, Bruckman R, editors. Statistics for the behavioral sciences. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning; 2000.
    1. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:622–629.
    1. Castillo J. Deteriorating stroke: diagnostic criteria, predictors, mechanisms and treatment. Cerebrovasc Dis. 1999;9(Suppl 3):1–8. doi: 10.1159/000047548.
    1. Binkofski F, Seitz RJ. Modulation of the bold-response in early recovery from sensorimotor stroke. Neurology. 2004;63:1223–1229. doi: 10.1212/.
    1. Carmichael ST, Tatsukawa K, Katsman D, Tsuyuguchi N, Korn-blum HI. Evolution of diaschisis in a focal stroke model. Stroke. 2004;35:758–763. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000117235.11156.55.
    1. Lai SM, Studenski S, Duncan PW, Perera S. Persisting consequences of stroke measured by the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke. 2002;33:1840–1844. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000019289.15440.F2.
    1. Studenski SA, Wallace D, Duncan PW, Rymer M, Lai SM. Predicting stroke recovery: three- and six-month rates of patient-centered functional outcomes based on the Orpington Prognostic Scale. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49:308–312. doi: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.4930308.x.
    1. Duncan PW, Lai SM, Tyler D, Perera S, Reker DM, Studenski S. Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke. 2002;33:2593–2599. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000034395.06874.3E.
    1. Dorman PJ, Slattery J, Farrell B, Dennis MS, Sandercock PA. A randomized comparison of the EuroQoL and short form-36 after stroke. United Kingdom collaborators in the international stroke trial. BMJ. 1997;315:461–461. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7106.461.
    1. Magaziner J, Simonsick EM, Kashner TM, Hebel JR. Patient-proxy response comparability on measures of patient health and functional status. J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41:1065–1074. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(88)90076-5.
    1. Segal ME, Gillard M, Schall R. Telephone and in-person proxy agreement between stroke patients and caregivers for the Functional Independence Measure. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;75:208–212. doi: 10.1097/00002060-199605000-00013.
    1. Hachisuka K, Ogata H, Ohkuma H, Tanaka S, Dozono K. Test-retest and inter-method reliability of the self-rating Barthel Index. Clin Rehabil. 1997;11:28–35. doi: 10.1177/026921559701100105.
    1. Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, de Haan RJ, Limburg M. Assessing quality of life after stroke. The value and limitations of proxy ratings. Stroke. 1997;28:1541–1549. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.28.8.1541.
    1. McGinnis GE, Seward ML, DeJong G, Osberg JS. Program evaluation of physical medicine and rehabilitation departments using self-report Barthel. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1986;67:123–125. doi: 10.1016/0003-9993(86)90121-8.
    1. Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care. 2000;38:II28–II42. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200009002-00007.
    1. Andres PL, Black-Schaffer RM, Ni P, Haley SM. Computer adaptive testing: a strategy for monitoring stroke rehabilitation across settings. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2004;11:33–39. doi: 10.1310/CUAN-ML5R-FWHD-0EQL.
    1. Dijkers MP. A computer adaptive testing simulation applied to the FIM instrument motor component. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;84:384–393. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2003.50006.
    1. Butcher JN, Perry J, Hahn J. Computers in clinical assessment: historical developments, present status, and future challenges. J Clin Psychol. 2004;60:331–345. doi: 10.1002/jclp.10267.
    1. Weiss DJ. Adaptive testing by computer. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1985;53:774–789. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.53.6.774.
    1. Velozo CA, Kielhofner G, Lai JS. The use of Rasch analysis to produce scale-free measurement of functional ability. Am J Occup Ther. 1999;53:83–90. doi: 10.5014/ajot.53.1.83.
    1. Segall DO. General ability measurement: an application of multidimensional item response theory. Psychometrika. 2001;66:79–97. doi: 10.1007/BF02295734.
    1. Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD, Granger CV, Hamilton BB. The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75:127–132.
    1. Wright BD, Stone MH. Best test design. Chicago: Mesa Press; 1979.
    1. Smith RM. Rasch measurement models: interpreting WINSTEPS/ BIGSTEPS and FACETS output. Chicago: Mesa Press; 1999.
    1. D’Olhaberriague L, Litvan I, Mitsias P, Mansbach HH. A reappraisal of reliability and validity studies in stroke. Stroke. 1996;27:2331–2336. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.27.12.2331.
    1. Lyden PD, Lau GT. A critical appraisal of stroke evaluation and rating scales. Stroke. 1991;22:1345–1352. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.22.11.1345.
    1. Brott T, Adams HP, Olinger CP, et al. Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale. Stroke. 1989;20:864–870. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.20.7.864.
    1. Lyden P, Brott T, Tilley B, et al. Improved reliability of the NIH stroke scale using video training. NINDS TPA stroke study group. Stroke. 1994;25:2220–2226. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.25.11.2220.
    1. Muir KW, Weir CJ, Murray GD, Povey C, Lees KR. Comparison of neurological scales and scoring systems for acute stroke prognosis. Stroke. 1996;27:1817–1820. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.27.10.1817.
    1. Gladstone DJ, Danells CJ, Black SE. The Fugl-Meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002;16:232–240. doi: 10.1177/154596802401105171.
    1. Wolf SL, Catlin PA, Ellis M, Archer AL, Morgan B, Piacentino A. Assessing the Wolf Motor Function test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke. Stroke. 2001;32:1635–1639. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.32.7.1635.
    1. 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;82:750–755. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2001.23183.
    1. Sloan RL, Sinclair E, Thompson J, Taylor S, Pentland B. Inter-rater reliability of the modified Ashworth scale for spasticity in hemiplegic patients. Int J Rehabil Res. 1992;15:158–161. doi: 10.1097/00004356-199206000-00009.
    1. Gregson JM, Leathley MJ, Moore AP, Smith TL, Sharma AK, Watkins CL. Reliability of measurements of muscle tone and muscle power in stroke patients. Age Ageing. 2000;29:223–228. doi: 10.1093/ageing/29.3.223.
    1. van Wijck FM, Pandyan AD, Johnson GR, Barnes MP. Assessing motor deficits in neurological rehabilitation: patterns of instrument usage. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2001;15:23–30. doi: 10.1177/154596830101500104.
    1. Pandyan AD, Price CI, Rodgers H, Barnes MP, Johnson GR. Biomechanical examination of a commonly used measure of spasticity. Clin Biomech. 2001;16:859–865. doi: 10.1016/S0268-0033(01)00084-5.
    1. Kiernan RJ, Mueller J, Langston JW, Van Dyke C. The Neurobehavioral Cognitive Status Examination: a brief but quantitative approach to cognitive assessment. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107:481–485.
    1. Lamarre CJ, Patten SB. A clinical evaluation of the Neurobehavioral Cognitive Status Examination in a general psychiatric inpatient population. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 1994;19:103–108.
    1. Schwamm LH, Van Dyke C, Kiernan RJ, Merrin EL, Mueller J. The Neurobehavioral Cognitive Status Examination: comparison with the Cognitive Capacity Screening Examination and the Mini-Mental State Examination in a neurosurgical population. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107:486–491.
    1. Osmon DC, Smet IC, Winegarden B, Gandhavadi B. Neurobehavioral Cognitive Status Examination: its use with unilateral stroke patients in a rehabilitation setting. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992;73:414–418.
    1. Toedter LJ, Schall RR, Reese CA, Hyland DT, Berk SN, Dunn DS. Psychological measures: reliability in the assessment of stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76:719–725. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(95)80525-7.
    1. Dick JP, Guiloff RJ, Stewart A, et al. Mini-Mental State Examination in neurological patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1984;47:496–499. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.47.5.496.
    1. Tombaugh TN, McIntyre NJ. The Mini-Mental State Examination: a comprehensive review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992;40:922–935.
    1. Agrell B, Dehlin O. Mini-Mental State Examination in geriatric stroke patients. Validity, differences between subgroups of patients, and relationships to somatic and mental variables. Aging. 2000;12:439–444.
    1. Grace J, Nadler JD, White DA, et al. Folstein vs. Modified Mini-Mental State Examination in geriatric stroke. Stability, validity, and screening utility. Arch Neurol. 1995;52:477–484. doi: 10.1001/archneur.1995.00540290067019.
    1. Gresham GE. Post-stroke rehabilitation: clinical practice guideline no. 16. DHHS Publication AHCPR 95-0662. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1995. Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Guideline Panel. Attachments.
    1. Goodglass H, Kaplan E. The assessment of aphasia and related disorders. 2nd ed. Media, PA: Williams & Wilkins; 1983.
    1. Goodglass H, Kaplan E. Test procedures and rationale. In: Manual for the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger; 1983.
    1. Kertesz A. The Western Aphasia Battery. New York: Grune and Stratton; 1982.
    1. Su CY, Chang JJ, Chen HM, Su CJ, Chien TH, Huang MH. Perceptual differences between stroke patients with cerebral infarction and intracerebral hemorrhage. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81:706–714.
    1. Mazer BL, Korner-Bitensky NA, Sofer S. Predicting ability to drive after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988;79:743–750. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(98)90350-1.
    1. Aben I, Verhey F, Lousberg R, Lodder J, Honig A. Validity of the Beck Depression Inventory, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, SCL-90, and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale as screening instruments for depression in stroke patients. Psychosomatics. 2002;43:386–393. doi: 10.1176/appi.psy.43.5.386.
    1. Roberts RE, Vernon SW, Rhoades HM. Effects of language and ethnic status on reliability and validity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale with psychiatric patients. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1989;177:581–592. doi: 10.1097/00005053-198910000-00001.
    1. Roberts RE, Vernon SW. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: its use in a community sample. Am J Psychiatry. 1983;140:41–46.
    1. Shinar D, Gross CR, Price TR, Banko M, Bolduc PL, Robinson RG. Screening for depression in stroke patients: the reliability and validity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Stroke. 1986;17:241–245. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.17.2.241.
    1. Parikh RM, Eden DT, Price TR, Robinson RG. The sensitivity and specificity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale in screening for post-stroke depression. Int J Psychiatry Med. 1988;18:169–181. doi: 10.2190/BH75-EUYA-4FM1-J7QA.
    1. Comstock GW, Helsing KJ. Symptoms of depression in two communities. Psychol Med. 1976;6:551–563. doi: 10.1017/S0033291700018171.
    1. Burns A, Lawlor B, Craig S. Rating scales in old age psychiatry. Br J Psychiatry. 2002;180:161–167. doi: 10.1192/bjp.180.2.161.
    1. Brink TL, Yesavage JA, Lum B, et al. Depressive symptoms and depressive diagnoses in a community population. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1982;45:1078–1084.
    1. Robinson RG, Price TR. Post-stroke depressive disorders: a follow-up study of 103 patients. Stroke. 1982;13:635–641. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.13.5.635.
    1. Agrell B, Dehlin O. Comparison of six depression rating scales in geriatric stroke patients. Stroke. 1989;20:1190–1194. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.20.9.1190.
    1. Hsueh IP, Lee MM, Hsieh CL. Psychometric characteristics of the Barthel activities of daily living index in stroke patients. J Formos Med Assoc. 2001;100:526–532.
    1. Sulter G, Steen C, De Keyser J. Use of the Barthel Index and Modified Rankin Scale in acute stroke trials. Stroke. 1999;30:1538–1541. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.30.8.1538.
    1. Uyttenboogaart M, Stewart RE, Vroomen PC, De Keyser J, Luijckx GJ. Optimizing cutoff scores for the Barthel Index and the Modified Rankin Scale for defining outcome in acute stroke trials. Stroke. 2005;36:1984–1987. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000177872.87960.61.
    1. van der Putten JJ, Hobart JC, Freeman JA, Thompson AJ. Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999;66:480–484. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.66.4.480.
    1. Duncan PW, Samsa GP, Weinberger M, Goldstein LB, Bonito A, Witter DM, et al. Health status of individuals with mild stroke. Stroke. 1997;28:740–745. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.28.4.740.
    1. Beninato M, Gill-Body KM, Salles S, Stark PC, Black-Schaffer RM, Stein J. Determination of the minimal clinically important difference in the FIM instrument in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:32–39. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.08.130.
    1. Cavanagh SJ, Hogan K, Gordon V, Fairfax J. Stroke-specific FIM models in an urban population. J Neurosci Nurs. 2000;32:17–21. doi: 10.1097/01376517-200002000-00006.
    1. Adunsky A, Fleissig Y, Levenkrohn S, Arad M, Noy S. Clock drawing task, Mini-Mental State Examination and Cognitive-Functional Independence Measure: relation to functional outcome of stroke patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2002;35:153–160. doi: 10.1016/S0167-4943(02)00018-3.
    1. Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI. The balance scale: reliability assessment with elderly residents and patients with an acute stroke. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1995;27:27–36.
    1. Mao HF, Hsueh IP, Tang PF, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. Analysis and comparison of the psychometric properties of three balance measures for stroke patients. Stroke. 2002;33:1022–1027. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000012516.63191.C5.
    1. Shumway-Cook A, Brauer S, Woollacott M. Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the Timed Up & Go test. Phys Ther. 2000;80:896–903.
    1. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott MH. Motor control: theory and practical applications. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1995.
    1. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “up & go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39:142–148.
    1. Whitney SL, Poole JL, Cass SP. A review of balance instruments for older adults. Am J Occup Ther. 1998;52:666–671. doi: 10.5014/ajot.52.8.666.
    1. Rockwood K, Await E, Carver D, MacKnight C. Feasibility and measurement properties of the Functional Reach and the Timed Up and Go tests in the Canadian study of health and aging. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000;55:M70–M73. doi: 10.1093/gerona/55.2.M70.
    1. Siggeirsdottir K, Jonsson BY, Jonsson H, Iwarsson S. The timed ‘up & go’ is dependent on chair type. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16:609–616. doi: 10.1191/0269215502cr529oa.
    1. Collen FM, Wade DT, Bradshaw CM. Mobility after stroke: reliability of measures of impairment and disability. Int Disabil Stud. 1990;12:6–9. doi: 10.3109/03790799009166594.
    1. Perry J, Garrett M, Gronley JK, Mulroy SJ. Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke. 1995;26:982–989. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.26.6.982.
    1. Goldie PA, Matyas TA, Evans OM. Deficit and change in gait velocity during rehabilitation after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77:1074–1082. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90072-6.
    1. Salbach NM, Mayo NE, Higgins J, Ahmed S, Finch LE, Richards CL. Responsiveness and predictability of gait speed and other disability measures in acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:1204–1212. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2001.24907.
    1. Collin C, Wade D. Assessing motor impairment after stroke: a pilot reliability study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1990;53:576–579. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.53.7.576.
    1. Kosak M, Smith T. Comparison of the 2-, 6-, and 12-minute walk tests in patients with stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42:103–107.
    1. Peeters P, Mets T. The 6-minute walk as an appropriate exercise test in elderly patients with chronic heart failure. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1996;51:M147–151. doi: 10.1093/gerona/51A.4.M147.
    1. Redelmeier DA, Bayoumi AM, Goldstein RS, Guyatt GH. Interpreting small differences in functional status: the six-minute walk test in chronic lung disease patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;155:1278–1282.
    1. Solway S, Brooks D, Lacasse Y, Thomas S. A qualitative systematic overview of the measurement properties of functional walk tests used in the cardiorespiratory domain. Chest. 2001;119:256–270. doi: 10.1378/chest.119.1.256.
    1. Berry MJ, Rejeski WJ, Adair NE, Zaccaro D. Exercise rehabilitation and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease stage. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999;160:1248–1253.
    1. Dobkin BH. Short-distance walking speed and timed walking distance: redundant measures for clinical trials? Neurology. 2006;66:584–586. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000198502.88147.dd.
    1. Eng JJ, Chu KS, Dawson AS, Kim CM, Hepburn KE. Functional walk tests in individuals with stroke: relation to perceived exertion and myocardial exertion. Stroke. 2002;33:756–761. doi: 10.1161/hs0302.104195.
    1. Kunkel A, Kopp B, Muller G, Villringer K, Villringer A, Taub E, Flor H. Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy for motor recovery in chronic stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80:624–628. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90163-6.
    1. Wolf SL, Lecraw DE, Barton LA, Jann BB. Forced use of hemi-plegic upper extremities to reverse the effect of learned nonuse among chronic stroke and head-injured patients. Exp Neurol. 1989;104:125–132. doi: 10.1016/S0014-4886(89)80005-6.
    1. Poole JL, Whitney SL. Motor assessment scale for stroke patients: concurrent validity and interrater reliability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988;69:195–197.
    1. Malouin F, Pichard L, Bonneau C, Durand A, Corriveau D. Evaluating motor recovery early after stroke: comparison of the Fugl-Meyer assessment and the Motor Assessment Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75:1206–1212. doi: 10.1016/0003-9993(94)90006-X.
    1. Lincoln N, Leadbitter D. Assessment of motor function in stroke patients. Physiotherapy. 1979;65:48–51.
    1. Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, van der Grond J, Prevo AJ. Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke. 2003;34:2181–2186. doi: 10.1161/.
    1. Cole B, Finch E, Gowland C, Mayo NE. Heart of the matter: template for outcome measures. Adult motor and functional activity measures. In: Basmajian J, editor. Physical rehabilitation outcome measures. Toronto, Ontario: Canada Communication Group-Publishing; 1994. pp. 38–78.
    1. Gowland C, Stratford P, Ward M, Moreland J, Torresin W, Van Hullenaar S, et al. Measuring physical impairment and disability with the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment. Stroke. 1993;24:58–63. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.24.1.58.
    1. Wolfe CD, Taub NA, Woodrow EJ, Burney PG. Assessment of scales of disability and handicap for stroke patients. Stroke. 1991;22:1242–1244. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.22.10.1242.
    1. Segal ME, Schall RR. Determining functional/health status and its relation to disability in stroke survivors. Stroke. 1994;25:2391–2397. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.25.12.2391.
    1. Gurland BJ, Wilder DE. The care interview revisited: development of an efficient, systematic clinical assessment. J Gerontol. 1984;39:129–137. doi: 10.1093/geronj/39.2.129.
    1. Kane RA, Kane RL. Assessing the elderly: a practical guide to measurement. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books; 1981. Multidimensional measures; pp. 209–247.
    1. Doble SE, Fisher AG. The dimensionality and validity of the Older Americans Resources and Services (OARS) activities of daily living (ADL) scale. J Outcome Meas. 1998;2:4–24.
    1. Kane RA, Kane RL. Assessing the elderly: a practical guide to measurement. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books; 1981. Measures of physical functioning in long-term care; pp. 25–66.
    1. Andresen EM, Meyers AR. Health-related quality of life outcomes measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81:S30–S45. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2000.20621.
    1. Ferguson RJ, Robinson AB, Splaine M. Use of the reliable change index to evaluate clinical significance in SF-36 outcomes. Qual Life Res. 2002;11:509–516. doi: 10.1023/A:1016350431190.
    1. Dorman P, Slattery J, Farrell B, Dennis M, Sandercock P. Qualitative comparison of the reliability of health status assessments with the EuroQoL and SF-36 questionnaires after stroke. United kingdom collaborators in the international stroke trial. Stroke. 1998;29:63–68. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.29.1.63.
    1. Walters SJ, Munro JF, Brazier JE. Using the SF-36 with older adults: a cross-sectional community-based survey. Age Ageing. 2001;30:337–343. doi: 10.1093/ageing/30.4.337.
    1. Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, Hays RD. A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:13–35. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200017010-00002.
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Valuation of the EuroQoL-5d health states. Available at: , Accessed Date: December 2005.
    1. Coast J, Peters TJ, Richards SH, Gunnell DJ. Use of the EuroQoL among elderly acute care patients. Qual Life Res. 1998;7:1–10. doi: 10.1023/A:1008857203434.
    1. Duncan PW, Bode RK, Min Lai S, Perera S. Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: the Stroke Impact Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:950–963. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00035-2.
    1. van Straten A, de Haan RJ, Limburg M, van den Bos GA. Clinical meaning of the stroke-adapted sickness impact profile-30 and the sickness impact profile-136. Stroke. 2000;31:2610–2615. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.31.11.2610.
    1. Golomb BA, Vickrey BG, Hays RD. A review of health-related quality-of-life measures in stroke. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19:155–185. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200119020-00004.
    1. Miller IW, Bishop DS, Epstein NB, Keitner GI. The McMaster Family Assessment Device: reliability and validity. J Marital Fam Ther. 1985;11:345–356. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.1985.tb00028.x.
    1. Frytak J. Measurement. J Rehabil Outcomes Meas. 2000;4:15–31.
    1. Taub E, Miller NE, Novack TA, et al. Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:347–354.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren