Clinical Rehabilitation

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hsueh, I-P.
Right arrow Articles by Hsieh, C.-L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hsueh, I-P.
Right arrow Articles by Hsieh, C.-L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 16, No. 6, 617-624 (2002)
DOI: 10.1191/0269215502cr530oa
© 2002 SAGE Publications

Responsiveness of two upper extremity function instruments for stroke inpatients receiving rehabilitation

I-Ping Hsueh

Ching-Lin Hsieh

School of Occupational Therapy, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC

Objective: To compare the responsiveness of the Action Research Arm test (ARAT) and the upper extremity section of the Motor Assessment Scale (UE-MAS) in assessing the recovery of upper extremity function in stroke inpatients receiving rehabilitation.

Subjects: Forty-eight stroke inpatients.

Setting: The physical medicine and rehabilitation department of a medical centre.

Design: The patients were tested at admission and at discharge from the department.

Methods: Various indices, including effect size d, Wilcoxon test and Spearman's rho, were used to assess responsiveness. The change in score of the upper extremity subscale of the Fugl-Meyer scale was used as the external criterion.

Results: The responsiveness indices of both total scores of the ARAT and UE-MAS are generally moderate and similar (d = 0.52, Wilcoxon Z = 5.03, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.66 for the ARAT; d = 0.45, Z = 4.54, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.7 for the UE-MAS). Responsiveness indices are small to moderate and similar in each of the subscales of both instruments.

Conclusion: The results of this study support the value of the ARAT and UE-MAS for measuring recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Neurorehabil Neural RepairHome page
N. Yozbatiran, L. Der-Yeghiaian, and S. C. Cramer
A Standardized Approach to Performing the Action Research Arm Test
Neurorehabil Neural Repair, February 1, 2008; 22(1): 78 - 90.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Clin RehabilHome page
C K English, S L Hillier, K Stiller, and A Warden-Flood
The sensitivity of three commonly used outcome measures to detect change amongst patients receiving inpatient rehabilitation following stroke
Clinical Rehabilitation, January 1, 2006; 20(1): 52 - 55.
[Abstract] [PDF]