A Aigner1, A Curt2, L G Tanadini3, M H Maathuis4. 1. Institute of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 2. Spinal Cord Injury Center, University Hospital Balgrist, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Seminar for Statistics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected longitudinal data. Variables of interest are timed and untimed walking assessments (10MWT, 6MWT, TUG, WISCI, SCIM3a, SCIM3b) and lower extremities motor scores (LEMS) from both sides' lower limb motor segments, measured five times within the first year after acute spinal cord injury (SCI). OBJECTIVES: Assessing concurrent validity of single and groups of walking assessments in comparison with LEMS in SCI patients. SETTING: European Multicenter study about Spinal Cord Injury, a collaboration of 22 centers. METHODS: Canonical correlation analysis (CCA) was applied to single and groups of assessments at each time point, separately for patients able to perform timed walking assessments (less impaired; patient subgroup I) and for all patients (no selection; patient subgroup II). RESULTS: In patient subgroup I, SCIM3b, WISCI, 10MWT and 6MWT all had high and similar concurrent validity one year after injury. Among all groups of three walking assessments, SCIM3a, WISCI and 10MWT had highest concurrent validity, similar to all six walking assessments together. Timed walking assessments generally had higher concurrent validity than untimed ones. In patient subgroup II, WISCI distinctly had highest concurrent validity one year after injury, similar to all three untimed walking assessments together. CONCLUSIONS: CCA can assess concurrent validity of single and groups of assessments. Minimal sets of walking assessments with comparable concurrent validity as all assessments together were proposed. As these sets differ by patient group, walking assessments should be specified according to expected walking ability to allow for targeted, cost-effective application of assessments.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected longitudinal data. Variables of interest are timed and untimed walking assessments (10MWT, 6MWT, TUG, WISCI, SCIM3a, SCIM3b) and lower extremities motor scores (LEMS) from both sides' lower limb motor segments, measured five times within the first year after acute spinal cord injury (SCI). OBJECTIVES: Assessing concurrent validity of single and groups of walking assessments in comparison with LEMS in SCI patients. SETTING: European Multicenter study about Spinal Cord Injury, a collaboration of 22 centers. METHODS: Canonical correlation analysis (CCA) was applied to single and groups of assessments at each time point, separately for patients able to perform timed walking assessments (less impaired; patient subgroup I) and for all patients (no selection; patient subgroup II). RESULTS: In patient subgroup I, SCIM3b, WISCI, 10MWT and 6MWT all had high and similar concurrent validity one year after injury. Among all groups of three walking assessments, SCIM3a, WISCI and 10MWT had highest concurrent validity, similar to all six walking assessments together. Timed walking assessments generally had higher concurrent validity than untimed ones. In patient subgroup II, WISCI distinctly had highest concurrent validity one year after injury, similar to all three untimed walking assessments together. CONCLUSIONS: CCA can assess concurrent validity of single and groups of assessments. Minimal sets of walking assessments with comparable concurrent validity as all assessments together were proposed. As these sets differ by patient group, walking assessments should be specified according to expected walking ability to allow for targeted, cost-effective application of assessments.
Authors: V Bluvshtein; L Front; M Itzkovich; E Aidinoff; I Gelernter; J Hart; F Biering-Soerensen; C Weeks; M T Laramee; C Craven; S L Hitzig; E Glaser; G Zeilig; S Aito; G Scivoletto; M Mecci; R J Chadwick; W S El Masry; A Osman; C A Glass; P Silva; B M Soni; B P Gardner; G Savic; E M Bergström; A Catz Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2010-09-07 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: J F Ditunno; P L Ditunno; V Graziani; G Scivoletto; M Bernardi; V Castellano; M Marchetti; H Barbeau; H L Frankel; J M D'Andrea Greve; H Y Ko; R Marshall; P Nance Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Steven C Kirshblum; William Waring; Fin Biering-Sorensen; Stephen P Burns; Mark Johansen; Mary Schmidt-Read; William Donovan; Daniel Graves; Amit Jha; Linda Jones; M J Mulcahey; Andrei Krassioukov Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Clive A Glass; Luigi Tesio; Malka Itzkovich; Bakul M Soni; Pedro Silva; Munawar Mecci; Raymond Chadwick; Waghi el Masry; Aheed Osman; Gordana Savic; Brian Gardner; Ebba Bergström; Amiram Catz Journal: J Rehabil Med Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 2.912
Authors: Jennifer A Coleman; Leia A Harper; Paul B Perrin; Silvia Leonor Olivera; Jose Libardo Perdomo; Jose Anselmo Arango; Juan Carlos Arango-Lasprilla Journal: PM R Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 2.298