OBJECTIVE: To examine the scalability of the Rivermead Motor Assessment (RMA) with nonacute stroke patients in the community. DESIGN: This was a prospective study of the patients after discharge from hospital. All subjects were assessed on the RMA at six and 12 months after discharge home from hospital. Coefficients of scalability and reproducibility were calculated for each of the three sections of the RMA at each assessment. SUBJECTS:Subjects were nonacute stroke patients aged 65 years and over, nonacute stroke patients aged under 65 years, and a selected group of those aged under 65 years. RESULTS: Only the items in the gross function section met scaling criteria with nonacute strokes in both age groups, which suggests that the items in this section were in appropriate order of difficulty. The items in the leg and trunk section were not in hierarchical order and were in fact closer to scaling if the present order were reversed. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and research value of the RMA, as an ordered scale, are questioned. Changes in treatment styles and philosophies may mean that some of the items themselves are out-dated.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To examine the scalability of the Rivermead Motor Assessment (RMA) with nonacute strokepatients in the community. DESIGN: This was a prospective study of the patients after discharge from hospital. All subjects were assessed on the RMA at six and 12 months after discharge home from hospital. Coefficients of scalability and reproducibility were calculated for each of the three sections of the RMA at each assessment. SUBJECTS: Subjects were nonacute strokepatients aged 65 years and over, nonacute strokepatients aged under 65 years, and a selected group of those aged under 65 years. RESULTS: Only the items in the gross function section met scaling criteria with nonacute strokes in both age groups, which suggests that the items in this section were in appropriate order of difficulty. The items in the leg and trunk section were not in hierarchical order and were in fact closer to scaling if the present order were reversed. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and research value of the RMA, as an ordered scale, are questioned. Changes in treatment styles and philosophies may mean that some of the items themselves are out-dated.
Authors: Shannon Pike; Anne Cusick; Kylie Wales; Lisa Cameron; Lynne Turner-Stokes; Stephen Ashford; Natasha A Lannin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 3.240