4.6 Article

Development of a Computerized Adaptive Testing System of the Functional Assessment of Stroke

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.09.116

关键词

Psychometrics; Rehabilitation; Reproducibility of results; Stroke; Validation studies as topic

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan [106-2811-B-002-036]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To develop a computerized adaptive testing system of the Functional Assessment of Stroke (CAT-FAS) to assess upper- and lower extremity (UE/LE) motor function, postural control, and basic activities of daily living with optimal efficiency and without sacrificing psychometric properties in patients with stroke. Design: Simulation study. Setting: One rehabilitation unit in a medical center. Participants: Patients with subacute stroke (N=301; mean age, 67.3 +/- 10.9; intracranial infarction, 74.5%). Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: The UE and LE subscales of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients, and Barthel Index. Results: The CAT-FAS adopting the optimal stopping rule (limited reliability increase of <.010) had good Rasch reliability across the 4 domains (.88-.93) and needed few items for the whole administration (8.5 items on average). The concurrent validity (CAT-FAS vs original tests, Pearson r=.91-.95) and responsiveness (standardized response mean, .65-.76) of the CAT-FAS were good in patients with stroke. Conclusions: We developed the CAT-FAS, and our results support that the CAT-FAS has sufficient efficiency, reliability, concurrent validity, and responsiveness in patients with stroke. The CAT-FAS can be used to simultaneously assess patients' functions of UE, LE, postural control, and basic activities of daily living using, on average, no more than 10 items; this efficiency is useful in reducing the assessment burdens for both clinicians and patients. (C) 2017 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine

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

4.6
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