Johannes G M Burgerhof1, Ecaterina Vasluian2, Pieter U Dijkstra3, Raoul M Bongers4, Corry K van der Sluis2. 1. Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.g.m.burgerhof@umcg.nl. 2. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; Center of Human Movement Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. INTRODUCTION: Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure (SHAP) provides function scores for hand grips (prehensile patterns) and an overall score, the index of function (IOF). The underlying equations of SHAP are not publicly available, which induces opacity. Furthermore, SHAP has been scarcely tested in prosthetic users. METHODS: Issues with SHAP-IOF are discussed; an alternative scoring system, that is, linear index of function (LIF) and a weighted version (W-LIF) are presented. In LIF, task times are transformed linearly, relative to SHAP norms, and are computed into LIF-prehensile patterns (LIFPP). LIF and IOF were compared using data of 27 experienced prosthetic users. RESULTS: High correlation and agreement between LIF and IOF was found: LIFPP vs IOFPP ranged from r = 0.880 to r = 0.988, and W-LIF vs IOF had a correlation coefficient of r = 0.984. DISCUSSION: SHAP data of prosthetic users are valuable benchmarks for health care professionals. LIF calculations are a good and cost free alternative for IOF scores. CONCLUSION(S): Measurements with LIF and IOF may be considered similar, but LIF is transparent and easier to use than IOF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Clinical measurement and cross-sectional.
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. INTRODUCTION: Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure (SHAP) provides function scores for hand grips (prehensile patterns) and an overall score, the index of function (IOF). The underlying equations of SHAP are not publicly available, which induces opacity. Furthermore, SHAP has been scarcely tested in prosthetic users. METHODS: Issues with SHAP-IOF are discussed; an alternative scoring system, that is, linear index of function (LIF) and a weighted version (W-LIF) are presented. In LIF, task times are transformed linearly, relative to SHAP norms, and are computed into LIF-prehensile patterns (LIFPP). LIF and IOF were compared using data of 27 experienced prosthetic users. RESULTS: High correlation and agreement between LIF and IOF was found: LIFPP vs IOFPP ranged from r = 0.880 to r = 0.988, and W-LIF vs IOF had a correlation coefficient of r = 0.984. DISCUSSION: SHAP data of prosthetic users are valuable benchmarks for health care professionals. LIF calculations are a good and cost free alternative for IOF scores. CONCLUSION(S): Measurements with LIF and IOF may be considered similar, but LIF is transparent and easier to use than IOF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Clinical measurement and cross-sectional.
Authors: Morten B Kristoffersen; Andreas W Franzke; Raoul M Bongers; Michael Wand; Alessio Murgia; Corry K van der Sluis Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2021-02-12 Impact factor: 4.262