The development and preliminary validation of the Taiwanese Manual Ability Measure for Burns.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate the Taiwanese Manual Ability Measure for Burns (T-MAM for Burns), a task-oriented functional evaluation tool to assess self-reported manual ability in burn patients. DESIGN: A longitudinal study. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of 45 burn patients from burn rehabilitation centers with varying degrees of hand involvement. METHODS: The preliminary testing version was formed by adding burn specific items to the Taiwanese version of the Manual Ability Measure. A field test was then conducted for item reduction and psychometric properties testing. RESULTS: Out of 55 initial items, 20 were selected into the final version of the T-MAM for Burns. Psychometric analyses indicated that it was reliable (test-retest ICC=.99), with adequate concurrent validity with various other hand function tests (r=-.79 with the short form Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, or, the QuickDASH) and discriminative validity (significant difference (t=2.99, P=.005) between groups with unilateral vs. bilateral hand burns), and responsive (ES=.24 and .44 at one- and 3-month evaluations). CONCLUSION: This study shows that the T-MAM for Burns has great potential to be a functional outcome measure for burn rehabilitation. Additional research with a larger sample should be conducted to further confirm its validity and reliability.

Hand function measures for burn patients: a literature review.

Hand function is one of the most important goals of burn rehabilitation and is a consensually important functional outcome. The purpose of this article is to review the available hand function measures commonly used for burn patients and to summarize their psychometric properties and clinical utilities to serve as guidelines for clinical practice and research. An online-database search of PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsychInfo was performed. One hundred and seventeen articles were found and 23 of them met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The eight identified measurement instruments were then classified into three categories: traditional component measures, performance measures and patient-reported outcome measures. Each type of hand function measure has its unique characteristics and limitations. Traditional component measures only reflect hand impairments, and may not represent hand function status. Performance measures have not been validated in the burn population and do not correlate well with patient-reported outcomes. Patient-reported outcome measures have not been rigorously validated in the burn population. A discussion of how clinicians choose these measures reflecting the purposes of their measurements and goals of intervention is provided. Moreover, future studies are suggested to develop burn-specific hand function measures.