4.4 Article

The Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper extremity: reliability, responsiveness and validity of the Danish version

期刊

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
卷 39, 期 9, 页码 934-939

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2016.1163422

关键词

Danish; Fugl-Meyer assessment upper extremity; outcome assessment; reliability; stroke; validity

资金

  1. Danish Physiotherapy Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To translate the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) into Danish and to establish the inter-tester reliability, responsiveness, Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and concurrent validity of the FMA-UE in a population of stroke patients. Method: The translation was conducted in accordance with the principles outlined by the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaption. Inter-rater reliability was assessed at baseline. Each patient was tested by two examiners and inter class correlation (ICC) was calculated. Responsiveness was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve statistics. The FMA-UE change score was used to assess sensitivity and specificity and to correctly determine which patients had improved. The MCID and the area under the curve (AUC) were established using the ROC. The FMA-UE's concurrent validity with the Motor Assessment Scale was determined using Spearman's rank correlation. Setting: The study took place at Skive Neurorehabilition, Denmark from May 2014 to February 2015. Participants: Inpatients, who were in the acute to sub-acute stage of stroke and aged >18 years. Interventions: Not applicable. Main outcome measure: The FMA-UE. Results: In 50 inpatients the ICC was 0.95, AUC was 0.87, with a sensitivity of 77%, a specificity of 89% and an MCID >= 4. Concurrent validity was high, with r = 0.94-0.95. Conclusion: The FMA-UE was successfully translated into Danish. An MCID >= 4 was found. This study provides evidence that the FMA-UE is a reliable, responsive and valid instrument for measuring upper limb impairment after stroke.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据