OBJECTIVE: To investigate the interrater reliability and construct validity of the Stroke Upper Limb Capacity Scale (SULCS). DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Inpatient department of a rehabilitation center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients after stroke (N=21; mean age ± SD, 61.7 ± 7.9y; 57% men), undergoing inpatient rehabilitation. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The SULCS was administered by occupational therapists (OTs) within 6 weeks after stroke (t1), 3 months after t1 by the same OT (t2), and within 1 week after t2 by another OT (t3). Interrater reliability, the repeatability between different raters, was assessed by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) based on the scores at t2 and t3. Construct validity, indicating agreement with hypotheses concerning the construct that is being measured, was assessed with Spearman rank correlation coefficient (ρ). The SULCS scores were cross-sectionally correlated with those of the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and the Rivermead Motor Assessment (RMA) at t1, and longitudinally with the respective change scores between t1 and t2. RESULTS: The SULCS (range, 0-10) had a high ICC (.94; 95% confidence interval, .86-.97) and strong cross-sectional correlation with both the ARAT and the RMA (ρ=.91 and ρ=.85, respectively), while the respective change scores showed a strong correlation with the ARAT (ρ=.71) and a moderate correlation with the RMA (ρ=.48). CONCLUSIONS: The SULCS has good interrater reliability and construct validity.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the interrater reliability and construct validity of the Stroke Upper Limb Capacity Scale (SULCS). DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Inpatient department of a rehabilitation center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients after stroke (N=21; mean age ± SD, 61.7 ± 7.9y; 57% men), undergoing inpatient rehabilitation. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The SULCS was administered by occupational therapists (OTs) within 6 weeks after stroke (t1), 3 months after t1 by the same OT (t2), and within 1 week after t2 by another OT (t3). Interrater reliability, the repeatability between different raters, was assessed by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) based on the scores at t2 and t3. Construct validity, indicating agreement with hypotheses concerning the construct that is being measured, was assessed with Spearman rank correlation coefficient (ρ). The SULCS scores were cross-sectionally correlated with those of the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and the Rivermead Motor Assessment (RMA) at t1, and longitudinally with the respective change scores between t1 and t2. RESULTS: The SULCS (range, 0-10) had a high ICC (.94; 95% confidence interval, .86-.97) and strong cross-sectional correlation with both the ARAT and the RMA (ρ=.91 and ρ=.85, respectively), while the respective change scores showed a strong correlation with the ARAT (ρ=.71) and a moderate correlation with the RMA (ρ=.48). CONCLUSIONS: The SULCS has good interrater reliability and construct validity.
Authors: Akhil Mohan; Jayme S Knutson; David A Cunningham; Morgan Widina; Kyle O'Laughlin; Tarun Arora; Xin Li; Ken Sakaie; Xiaofeng Wang; Ken Uchino; Ela B Plow Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 4.086
Authors: Jayme S Knutson; Amy S Friedl; Kristine M Hansen; Mary Y Harley; A M Barrett; Preeti Raghavan; Ela B Plow; Douglas D Gunzler; John Chae Journal: Trials Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Jayme S Knutson; Amy S Friedl; Kristine M Hansen; Terri Z Hisel; Mary Y Harley Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2018-08-24 Impact factor: 3.966
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
Authors: Jayme S Knutson; Nathaniel S Makowski; Mary Y Harley; Terri Z Hisel; Douglas D Gunzler; Richard D Wilson; John Chae Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Leonardo Boccuni; Lucio Marinelli; Carlo Trompetto; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; José María Tormos Muñoz Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 4.086
Authors: Eline C C van Lieshout; Johanna M A Visser-Meily; Sebastiaan F W Neggers; H Bart van der Worp; Rick M Dijkhuizen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-08-28 Impact factor: 2.692