ABSTRACT
Purpose：The Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure (SHAP) is a test of upper extremity function composed of 12 movement tasks and 14 activities of daily living tasks, and is used as an assessment battery for upper extremity prostheses. The purpose of this study is to examine its validity in clinical practice.Methods：The study included 143 patients with hemiparesis. The validity of SHAP and an existing assessment battery were compared in this study. Factors influencing the validity of differences between dominant and non-dominant hands were examined.Results：Concomitant validity was shown between the SHAP Japanese version and an existing upper extremity function evaluation method. A strong correlation with the subjective evaluation scale was obtained in cases of dominant hand paralysis.Discussion：These results suggested that SHAP is able to accurately evaluate upper extremity hemiparesis, because the difficulty level in evaluation of upper extremity function is higher than that of the Action Research Arm Test, and a ceiling effect is unlikely. Therefore, SHAP is useful in clinical practice not only for assessment of an artificial hand but also for hemiparesis with stroke. Further study to clarify the characteristics of SHAP as well as verification of reliability and standard values is warranted.
ABSTRACT
Purpose：The Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure (SHAP) is a test of upper extremity function composed of 12 movement tasks and 14 activities of daily living tasks, and is used as an assessment battery for upper extremity prostheses. The purpose of this study is to examine its validity in clinical practice.Methods：The study included 143 patients with hemiparesis. The validity of SHAP and an existing assessment battery were compared in this study. Factors influencing the validity of differences between dominant and non-dominant hands were examined.Results：Concomitant validity was shown between the SHAP Japanese version and an existing upper extremity function evaluation method. A strong correlation with the subjective evaluation scale was obtained in cases of dominant hand paralysis.Discussion：These results suggested that SHAP is able to accurately evaluate upper extremity hemiparesis, because the difficulty level in evaluation of upper extremity function is higher than that of the Action Research Arm Test, and a ceiling effect is unlikely. Therefore, SHAP is useful in clinical practice not only for assessment of an artificial hand but also for hemiparesis with stroke. Further study to clarify the characteristics of SHAP as well as verification of reliability and standard values is warranted.
ABSTRACT
Background: The Conflict Tactics Scale 1 [CTS1] is a widely used self-report measure of abusive attitudes of parents towards children. The factor structure of the CTS1 still remains to be clarified. The aim of this study was to examine the factor structure of the Japanese version of the CTS1 for postpartum women in community settings
Method: The data in this study came from the Okayama and Kumamoto's study. These were part of a larger survey using longitudinal questionnaire studies conducted in Japan from 2001 to 2002 and in 2011, respectively. In both study sites, the participant mothers were asked to fill in the CTS1 one month after delivery when they attended for check-up at the out-patient clinic
Results: A total of 1,150 questionnaires were collected, excluding the participants with missing values in the CTS1. Finally, 1,078 were included in the statistical analyses. Data of 1,078 women were divided into two parts. In the first halved sample [n=578], an exploratory factor analysis was conducted for the CTS1 items after excluding nine items with extremely low prevalence. It revealed 2-factor or 3-factor models. Then, we conducted a model comparison with the second halved sample [n=500], using confirmatory factor analysis. In terms of goodness-of-fit indeces, the 2-factor model was superior. Its subscales were Reasoning and Psycholosical Aggression
Conclusion: The 2-factor model of the CTS1 consisting of Reasoning and Psychological Aggression was superior to the 3-factor model. This is not inconsistent with the original authors' theoretical model