OBJECTIVE: To investigate the concurrent validity between the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) and to compare their reproducibility, internal consistency and floor and ceiling effects in the same sample of stroke patients. METHODS: Forty patients participated in this study. Concurrent validity was determined with Spearman's rank correlation coefficients. Reproducibility was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots, internal consistency by means of Cronbach's alphas, and floor and ceiling effects were considered to be present if more than 20% of patients fell outside a preliminary set lower and upper boundary. RESULTS: Spearman's rank correlation coefficients ranged from 0.70 to 0.86. ICCs for inter-rater and intra-rater reliability ranged from 0.92 to 0.97. Bland-Altman plots showed a less stable way of scoring for the WMFT, compared with the ARAT. Cronbach's alpha was > 0.98 for both scales. No floor and ceiling effects were found. CONCLUSION: The present study showed good clinimetric properties for both assessments. The high concurrent validity suggests that ARAT and WMFT have significant overlap with regard to the underlying construct that is being measured.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the concurrent validity between the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) and to compare their reproducibility, internal consistency and floor and ceiling effects in the same sample of strokepatients. METHODS: Forty patients participated in this study. Concurrent validity was determined with Spearman's rank correlation coefficients. Reproducibility was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots, internal consistency by means of Cronbach's alphas, and floor and ceiling effects were considered to be present if more than 20% of patients fell outside a preliminary set lower and upper boundary. RESULTS: Spearman's rank correlation coefficients ranged from 0.70 to 0.86. ICCs for inter-rater and intra-rater reliability ranged from 0.92 to 0.97. Bland-Altman plots showed a less stable way of scoring for the WMFT, compared with the ARAT. Cronbach's alpha was > 0.98 for both scales. No floor and ceiling effects were found. CONCLUSION: The present study showed good clinimetric properties for both assessments. The high concurrent validity suggests that ARAT and WMFT have significant overlap with regard to the underlying construct that is being measured.
Authors: Corinna Oberle; Clemens Becker; Sabine Schölch; Joerg-Uwe Lenz; Stefan Studier-Fischer; Peter Augat; Lars Schwickert Journal: Z Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 1.281
Authors: Steven L Wolf; Komal Sahu; R Curtis Bay; Sharon Buchanan; Aimee Reiss; Susan Linder; Anson Rosenfeldt; Jay Alberts Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Michael W O'Dell; Grace Kim; Lisa Rivera; Robert Fieo; Paul Christos; Caitlin Polistena; Kerri Fitzgerald; Delia Gorga Journal: J Rehabil Med Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 2.912
Authors: Sophie Wang; C Janice Hsu; Lauren Trent; Tiffany Ryan; Nathan T Kearns; Eugene F Civillico; Kimberly L Kontson Journal: PM R Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 2.298