Kimberly J Waddell1, Catherine E Lang2. 1. Program in Physical Therapy, Washington University, St Louis, MO. 2. Program in Physical Therapy, Department of Neurology, Program in Occupational Therapy, Washington University, St Louis, MO. Electronic address: langc@wustl.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare self-reported with sensor-measured upper limb (UL) performance in daily life for individuals with chronic (≥6mo) UL paresis poststroke. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of participants enrolled in a phase II randomized, parallel, dose-response UL movement trial. This analysis compared the accuracy and consistency between self-reported UL performance and sensor-measured UL performance at baseline and immediately post an 8-week intensive UL task-specific intervention. SETTING: Outpatient rehabilitation. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling individuals with chronic (≥6mo) UL paresis poststroke (N=64). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Motor Activity Log amount of use scale and the sensor-derived use ratio from wrist-worn accelerometers. RESULTS: There was a high degree of variability between self-reported UL performance and the sensor-derived use ratio. Using sensor-based values as a reference, 3 distinct categories were identified: accurate reporters (reporting difference ±0.1), overreporters (difference >0.1), and underreporters (difference <-0.1). Five of 64 participants accurately self-reported UL performance at baseline and postintervention. Over half of participants (52%) switched categories from pre-to postintervention (eg, moved from underreporting preintervention to overreporting postintervention). For the consistent reporters, no participant characteristics were found to influence whether someone over- or underreported performance compared with sensor-based assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Participants did not consistently or accurately self-report UL performance when compared with the sensor-derived use ratio. Although self-report and sensor-based assessments are moderately associated and appear similar conceptually, these results suggest self-reported UL performance is often not consistent with sensor-measured performance and the measures cannot be used interchangeably.
OBJECTIVE: To compare self-reported with sensor-measured upper limb (UL) performance in daily life for individuals with chronic (≥6mo) UL paresis poststroke. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of participants enrolled in a phase II randomized, parallel, dose-response UL movement trial. This analysis compared the accuracy and consistency between self-reported UL performance and sensor-measured UL performance at baseline and immediately post an 8-week intensive UL task-specific intervention. SETTING: Outpatient rehabilitation. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling individuals with chronic (≥6mo) UL paresis poststroke (N=64). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Motor Activity Log amount of use scale and the sensor-derived use ratio from wrist-worn accelerometers. RESULTS: There was a high degree of variability between self-reported UL performance and the sensor-derived use ratio. Using sensor-based values as a reference, 3 distinct categories were identified: accurate reporters (reporting difference ±0.1), overreporters (difference >0.1), and underreporters (difference <-0.1). Five of 64 participants accurately self-reported UL performance at baseline and postintervention. Over half of participants (52%) switched categories from pre-to postintervention (eg, moved from underreporting preintervention to overreporting postintervention). For the consistent reporters, no participant characteristics were found to influence whether someone over- or underreported performance compared with sensor-based assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Participants did not consistently or accurately self-report UL performance when compared with the sensor-derived use ratio. Although self-report and sensor-based assessments are moderately associated and appear similar conceptually, these results suggest self-reported UL performance is often not consistent with sensor-measured performance and the measures cannot be used interchangeably.
Authors: Swann Arp Adams; Charles E Matthews; Cara B Ebbeling; Charity G Moore; Joan E Cunningham; Jeanette Fulton; James R Hebert Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2005-02-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Gitendra Uswatte; Carol Giuliani; Carolee Winstein; Angelique Zeringue; Laura Hobbs; Steven L Wolf Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Kimberly J Waddell; Michael J Strube; Ryan R Bailey; Joseph W Klaesner; Rebecca L Birkenmeier; Alexander W Dromerick; Catherine E Lang Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2016-12-13 Impact factor: 4.895
Authors: Catherine E Lang; Michael J Strube; Marghuretta D Bland; Kimberly J Waddell; Kendra M Cherry-Allen; Randolph J Nudo; Alexander W Dromerick; Rebecca L Birkenmeier Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 11.274
Authors: Stéphanie A Prince; Kristi B Adamo; Meghan E Hamel; Jill Hardt; Sarah Connor Gorber; Mark Tremblay Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2008-11-06 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Johannes Pohl; Alain Ryser; Janne Marieke Veerbeek; Geert Verheyden; Julia Elisabeth Vogt; Andreas Rüdiger Luft; Chris Awai Easthope Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-09-28 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Peter S Lum; Liqi Shu; Elaine M Bochniewicz; Tan Tran; Lin-Ching Chang; Jessica Barth; Alexander W Dromerick Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2020-11-05 Impact factor: 3.919