Improving the utility of the Brunnstrom recovery stages in patients with stroke: Validation and quantification

Chien-Yu Huang, Gong-Hong Lin, Yi-Jing Huang, Chen-Yi Song, Ya-Chen Lee, Mon-Jane How, Yi-Miau Chen, I-Ping Hsueh, Mei-Hsiang Chen, Ching-Lin Hsieh, Chien-Yu Huang, Gong-Hong Lin, Yi-Jing Huang, Chen-Yi Song, Ya-Chen Lee, Mon-Jane How, Yi-Miau Chen, I-Ping Hsueh, Mei-Hsiang Chen, Ching-Lin Hsieh

Abstract

The Brunnstrom recovery stages (the BRS) consists of 2 items assessing the poststroke motor function of the upper extremities and 1 assessing the lower extremities. The 3 items together represent overall motor function. Although the BRS efficiently assesses poststroke motor functions, a lack of rigorous examination of the psychometric properties restricts its utility. We aimed to examine the unidimensionality, Rasch reliability, and responsiveness of the BRS, and transform the raw sum scores of the BRS into Rasch logit scores once the 3 items fitted the assumptions of the Rasch model.We retrieved medical records of the BRS (N = 1180) from a medical center. We used Rasch analysis to examine the unidimensionality and Rasch reliability of both upper-extremity items and the 3 overall motor items of the BRS. In addition, to compare their responsiveness for patients (n = 41) assessed with the BRS and the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM) on admission and at discharge, we calculated the effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM).The upper-extremity items and overall motor items fitted the assumptions of the Rasch model (infit/outfit mean square = 0.57-1.40). The Rasch reliabilities of the upper-extremity items and overall motor items were high (0.91-0.92). The upper-extremity items and overall motor items had adequate responsiveness (ES = 0.35-0.41, SRM = 0.85-0.99), which was comparable to that of the STREAM (ES = 0.43-0.44, SRM = 1.00-1.13).The results of our study support the unidimensionality, Rasch reliability, and responsiveness of the BRS. Moreover, the BRS can be transformed into an interval-level measure, which would be useful to quantify the extent of poststroke motor function, the changes of motor function, and the differences of motor functions in patients with stroke.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The procedure of data selection in this study.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The person–item map of the upper-extremity items (left) and overall items (right) of the BRS. The numbers (such as 1, 2, and 3) next to the items represent the steps of each item; scores in the middle (−13.55 to 13.12 and −9.41 to 9.24) are the logit scores calculated along with Rasch analysis to reflect patients’ motor function or the difficulties of the steps of the items.

References

    1. Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol 2009; 8:741–754.
    1. Brunnstrom S. Motor testing procedures in hemiplegia: based on sequential recovery stages. Phys Ther 1966; 46:357–375.
    1. Chang JJ, Sung YT, Lin YT. The relationship between early motor stage and hand function recovery six months after stroke. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 1990; 6:38–44.
    1. Safaz I, Yilmaz B, Yaşar E, et al. Brunnstrom recovery stage and motricity index for the evaluation of upper extremity in stroke: analysis for correlation and responsiveness. Int J Rehabil Res 2009; 32:228–231.
    1. Naghdi S, Ansari NN, Mansouri K, et al. A neurophysiological and clinical study of Brunnstrom recovery stages in the upper limb following stroke. Brain Inj 2010; 24:1372–1378.
    1. Jush SD, Wang CH, Hsieh CL, et al. The Brunnstrom recovery scale: its reliability and concurrent validity. J Occup Ther Assoc ROC 1996; 14:1–12.
    1. Hashimoto K, Higuchi K, Nakayama Y, et al. Ability for basic movement as an early predictor of functioning related to activities of daily living in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007; 21:353–357.
    1. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. USA: Oxford University Press; 2014.
    1. Chou CY, Chien CW, Hsueh IP, et al. Developing a short form of the Berg Balance Scale for people with stroke. Phys Ther 2006; 86:195–204.
    1. Jenkinson C, Clarke C, Gray R, et al. Comparing results from long and short form versions of the Parkinson's disease questionnaire in a longitudinal study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2015; 21:1312–1316.
    1. Tennant A, Geddes JML, Chamberlain MA. The Barthel Index: an ordinal score or interval level measure? Clin Rehabil 1996; 10:301–308.
    1. Koh CL, Hsueh I, Wang WC, et al. Validation of the action research arm test using item response theory in patients after stroke. J Rehabil Med 2006; 38:375–380.
    1. Tennant A, Conaghan PG. The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Care Res 2007; 57:1358–1362.
    1. Ahmed S, Mayo NE, Higgins J, et al. The Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM): a comparison with other measures used to evaluate effects of stroke and rehabilitation. Phys Ther 2003; 83:617–630.
    1. Hsueh IP, Hsu MJ, Sheu CF, et al. Psychometric comparisons of 2 versions of the Fugl-Meyer Motor Scale and 2 versions of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2008; 22:737–744.
    1. Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PDA, et al. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51:1055–1068.
    1. Van der Putten J, Hobart JC, Freeman JA, et al. 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.
    1. Holmes WC, Shea JA. A new HIV/AIDS-targeted quality of life (HAT-QoL) instrument: development, reliability, and validity. Med Care 1998; 36:138–154.
    1. Linacre JM. A User's Guide to Winsteps, Ministep: Rasch-Model Computer Programs. Chicago: ; 2007.
    1. Decruynaere C, Thonnard J-L, Plaghki L. How many response levels do children distinguish on faces scales for pain assessment? Eur J Pain 2009; 13:641–648.
    1. Linacre JM. Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J Appl Meas 2002; 3:85–106.
    1. Teresi JA, Kleinman M, Ocepek-Welikson K. Modern psychometric methods for detection of differential item functioning: application to cognitive assessment measures. Stat Med 2000; 19:1651–1683.
    1. Fleishman JA, Lawrence WF. Demographic variation in SF-12 scores: true differences or differential item functioning? Med Care 2003; 41:III75–III86.
    1. Linacre, J. M.Winsteps® Rasch measurement computer program (Version 3.64.2). Beaverton, Oregon: 2010.
    1. Pallant JF, Tennant A. An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: an example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Br J Clin Psychol 2007; 46:1–18.
    1. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
    1. Hsueh I-P, Wang W-C, Wang C-H, et al. A simplified stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement instrument. Phys Ther 2006; 86:936–943.
    1. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, et al. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53:459–468.
    1. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2014.
    1. Thissen D. Wainer H, Dorans NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Reliability and Measurement Precision. Mahwah:2000.
    1. De Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, et al. Measurement in Medicine: A Practical Guide. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
    1. Huang Y-J, Chen K-L, Chou Y-T, et al. Comparison of the responsiveness of the long-form and simplified stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement: group-and individual-level analysis. Phys Ther 2015; 95:1172–1183.
    1. Chen KL, Chen CT, Chou YT, et al. Is the long form of the Fugl-Meyer motor scale more responsive than the short form in patients with stroke? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2014; 95:941–949.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj