Conceptualisation and development of the arm activity measure (ArmA) for assessment of activity in the hemiparetic arm

Stephen Ashford, Mike Slade, Lynne Turner-Stokes, Stephen Ashford, Mike Slade, Lynne Turner-Stokes

Abstract

Purpose: To develop a patient reported outcome measure of active and passive function in the hemiparetic upper limb.

Methods: Potential items for inclusion were identified through (a) systematic review and analysis of existing measures and (b) analysis of the primary goals for treatment in a spasticity service. Item reduction was achieved through consultation with a small, purposively selected multi-disciplinary group of experienced rehabilitation professionals (n = 10) in a three-round Delphi process. This was followed by a confirmatory survey with a larger group of clinicians (n = 36) and patients and carers (n = 13 pairs).

Results: From an initial shortlist of 75 items, 23 items were initially identified for inclusion in the arm activity measure (ArmA), and subsequently refined to a 20-item instrument comprising 7 passive and 13 active function. In common with the six measures identified in the systematic review, a five-point ordinal scaling structure was chosen, with ratings based on activity over the preceding 7 days.

Conclusions: The ArmA is designed to measure passive and active function following focal interventions for the hemiparetic upper limb. Content and face validity have initially been addressed within the development process. The next phase of development has involved formal evaluation of psychometric properties.

Implications for rehabilitation: In clinical practice or research, outcome measures in rehabilitation need to have face and content validity. Following stroke or brain injury, goals for rehabilitation of the hemiparetic upper limb may be: to restore active function, if there is return of motor control or to improve passive function making it easier to care for the limb (e.g. maintain hygiene) if no motor return is possible, measurement of both constructs should be considered. This study describes the systematic development of the ArmA, a measure of active and passive function in the hemiparetic upper limb.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Summary of item reduction for the ArmA.

References

    1. Wade DT, Collin C. The Barthel ADL Index: a standard measure of physical disability? Int Disabil Stud. 1988;10:64–7.
    1. Ashford S, Turner-Stokes L. Goal attainment for spasticity management using botulinum toxin. Physiother Res Int. 2006;11:24–34.
    1. Sheean GL. Botulinum treatment of spasticity: why is it difficult to show a functional benefit? Curr Opin Neurol. 2001;14:771–6.
    1. Shaw L, Rodgers H, Price C, et al. BoTULS: a multicentre randomised-controlled trial to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treating upper limb spasticity due to stroke with botulinum toxin A. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14:iii–iv.
    1. Ashford S, Slade M, Malaprade F, et al. Evaluation of functional outcome measures for the hemiparetic upper limb: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40:787–95.
    1. Bhakta BB, Cozens J, Chamberlain M, et al. Impact of botulinum toxin type A on disability and carer burden due to arm spasticity after stroke: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000;69:217–21.
    1. Uswatte G, Taub E, Morris D, et al. The Motor Activity Log-28 assessing daily use of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. Neurology. 2006;67:1189–94.
    1. Uswatte G, Taub E, Morris D, et al. Reliability and validity of the upper-extremity Motor Activity Log-14 for measuring real world arm use. Stroke. 2005;36:2493–6.
    1. van der Lee JH, Beckerman H, Knol DL, et al. Clinimetric properties of the Motor Activity Log for the assessment of arm use in hemiparetic patients. Stroke. 2004;35:1–5.
    1. Penta M, Tesio L, Arnould C, et al. The ABILHAND questionnaire as a measure of manual ability in chronic stroke patients – Rasch-based validation and relationship to upper limb impairment. Stroke. 2001;32:1627–34.
    1. Penta M, Thonnard J-L, Tesio L. ABILHAND: a Rasch-built measure of manual ability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79:1038–42.
    1. Burns SP, Rivara FP, Johansen JM, et al. Rehabilitation of traumatic injuries: use of the Delphi method to identify topics for evidence-based review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;82:410–14.
    1. Finger M, Cieza A, Stoll J, et al. Identification of intervention categories for physical therapy, based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health: a Delphi exercise. Phys Ther. 2006;86:1203–20.
    1. Reid N. The Delphi technique: its contribution to the evaluation of professional practice. In: Ellis R, editor. Professional competence and quality assurance in the caring professions. London: Chapman Hall; 1988. pp. 230–63.
    1. Raine S. Defining the Bobath concept using the Delphi technique. Physiother Res Int. 2006;11:4–11.
    1. Massof RW. Application of stochastic measurement models to visual function rating scale questionnaires. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2005;12:103–24.
    1. Linacre JM. Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Meas Trans. 1994;7:328.
    1. Martin M, Liu H, Spritze K, et al. Item response theory methods can improve the measurement of physical function by combining the modified health assessment questionnaire and the SF-36 physical function scale. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:647–60.
    1. Wismeijer AAJ, Sijtsma K, van Assen MA, et al. A comparative study of the dimensionality of the self-concealment scale using principal component analysis and Mokken scale analysis. J Pers Assess. 2008;90:323–34.
    1. Deane KHO, Ellis-Hill C, Dekker K, et al. A Delphi survey of best practice occupational therapy for Parkinson’s disease in the United Kingdom. Br J Occup Ther. 2003;66:247–54.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere