OBJECTIVE: We explored expectations for outcomes during a research intervention for people with stroke. METHOD: Twelve people with chronic stroke participated in this secondary analysis from a pilot trial of a high-repetition, task-specific, upper-extremity intervention. First, we examined relationships between individual expectancy and session-by-session achievement of high numbers of repetitions. Second, we examined the relationship between expectancy for the intervention as a whole and improvements in upper-extremity motor function. We used Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients to evaluate the relationships. RESULTS: Correlations between individual expectancy and session-by-session achievement ranged from 0 to .84. Expectancy for improvement from the intervention was good (average = 7 of 10) but had a low correlation (.17) with actual improvement. CONCLUSION: Individual expectancy ratings were inconsistently related to session-by-session achievement. Expectancy for the invention as a whole was not related to improvement in upper-extremity motor function.
OBJECTIVE: We explored expectations for outcomes during a research intervention for people with stroke. METHOD: Twelve people with chronic stroke participated in this secondary analysis from a pilot trial of a high-repetition, task-specific, upper-extremity intervention. First, we examined relationships between individual expectancy and session-by-session achievement of high numbers of repetitions. Second, we examined the relationship between expectancy for the intervention as a whole and improvements in upper-extremity motor function. We used Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients to evaluate the relationships. RESULTS: Correlations between individual expectancy and session-by-session achievement ranged from 0 to .84. Expectancy for improvement from the intervention was good (average = 7 of 10) but had a low correlation (.17) with actual improvement. CONCLUSION: Individual expectancy ratings were inconsistently related to session-by-session achievement. Expectancy for the invention as a whole was not related to improvement in upper-extremity motor function.
Authors: Jack A Cook; Bo Feng; Katherine S Fenner; Sarah Kempshall; Ray Liu; Charles Rotter; Dennis A Smith; Matthew D Troutman; Mohammed Ullah; Caroline A Lee Journal: Mol Pharm Date: 2010-04-05 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: A W Dromerick; C E Lang; R L Birkenmeier; J M Wagner; J P Miller; T O Videen; W J Powers; S L Wolf; D F Edwards Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-05-20 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Catherine E Lang; Jillian R Macdonald; Darcy S Reisman; Lara Boyd; Teresa Jacobson Kimberley; Sheila M Schindler-Ivens; T George Hornby; Sandy A Ross; Patricia L Scheets Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.966