Modifying the Mobility Scale for Acute Stroke (MSAS) for All Stroke Phases (MSAllS): Measurement Properties and Clinical Application.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and examine the measurement properties and interpretability of the Mobility Scale for "All" Stroke Phases (MSAllS) as a potential single outcome measure to capture improvements in physical function throughout the stroke continuum. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation unit. PARTICIPANTS: People after stroke at discharge from rehabilitation (N=309). INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We developed MSAllS by extending the highest MSAS level (walk 10 m independently) with 4 gait speed levels. To establish a clinical anchor, we extracted a 4-level discharge outcome. To assess the distributional properties and internal consistency of MSAllS, we evaluated its ceiling effects and calculated the Cronbach alpha, respectively. To assess structural validity, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis. To assess (i) its convergent validity with the FIM and (ii) its predictive validity with the clinical anchor, we used Spearman's rank correlations. To evaluate the clinical interpretability of MSAllS, we used an item-response theory-based method to estimate MSAllS thresholds associated with the clinical anchor. RESULTS: The MSAllS had lower ceiling effects compared with MSAS (0% vs 25%). Internal consistency of MSAllS was excellent (α=0.94). Structural validity of MSAllS demonstrated a good fit (Comparative Fit Index=0.95; Tucker-Lewis Index=0.92; Root Means Square Error of Approximation=0.17). MSAllS demonstrated a moderate correlation (rho=0.66) with FIM score and with the clinical anchor (rho=0.75). MSAllS thresholds for increasing levels of the clinical anchor were 22 (20.8 to 23.6) - at least moderate assistance with walking/transfers, 28 (27.5 to 29.4) - at most supervision with walking, and 33 (32.5 to 33.4) - able to walk unassisted. CONCLUSION: The MSAllS showed adequate measurement properties and clinical interpretability. MSAllS has the potential to be a single universal measure to evaluate physical function after stroke but further evaluation of clinical interpretability is required.

Interventions to address sedentary behaviour for older adults: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Sedentary behaviour is associated with increased risk for lower health status and all-cause mortality. Older adults spend up to 75%, on average, of their day sedentary, however little is known about interventions designed to decrease sitting time for this population. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to broadly determine what is known about sedentary behaviour interventions for older adults. Electronic databases were searched for articles with eligibility criteria including: (1) interventions containing strategies to decrease sedentary behaviour, (2) adults ≥60 years of age, and (3) reported outcome measures related to sedentary behaviour. RESULTS: A total of 32 articles met the inclusion criteria. While methodological quality and intervention characteristics varied among the studies, the majority of interventions used a multi-component approach. Interventions involved a variety of behavioural change strategies with goal setting, information and self-monitoring the most frequently used. Of the 20 studies reporting results, 80% (n = 16) found at least one significant change in sedentary behaviour. CONCLUSION: Findings from this scoping review suggest that sedentary behaviour can be reduced in community-dwelling older adults through multi-component targeted interventions. Future work is needed to examine sedentary behaviour interventions for adults >75 years and for persons living in long-term care institutions.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONOlder adults spend up to 75% of their day sedentary and are at an increased risk for chronic conditions, functional limitations, and mortality.Multi-component sedentary behaviour interventions, such as education, physical activity, and activity monitoring should be implemented for older adults.When designing interventions, incorporating goal-setting, self-monitoring and other behaviour change strategies can reduce sitting time for older adults.

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Singapore version of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity.

Purpose: To develop a Singapore version of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory (CAHAI) and to estimate the construct validity and inter-rater reliability. Materials and methods: The Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Objectively Assessed Outcome measure procedure was used to systematically adapt the CAHAI. We recruited 56 adults admitted to an inpatient stroke facility to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Singapore version of the CAHAI. The Singapore version of the CAHAI, Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), and the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) were administered to all participants. We used Spearman's rank correlation coefficients to estimate convergent and discriminative validity, and reliability was estimated using the intra-class correlation coefficient and standard error of measurement. Results: Implementation of the Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Objectively Assessed Outcome measure procedure resulted in the modification to two test items. The Singapore version of the CAHAI demonstrated convergent validity with the FMA-UE (rs = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.76, 0.92) and ARAT (rs = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.63, 0.9). Discriminative validity between the Singapore version of the CAHAI and FMA-UE pain subscale was rs= 0.42 (95% CI: 0.22, 0.59). Reliability of the Singapore version of the CAHAI was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94, 0.99) and standard error of measurement of 4.80 points (95% CI: 4.23, 5.55). Conclusion: The Singapore version of the CAHAI demonstrated good validity and reliability, similar to the properties of the original CAHAI. Implications for rehabilitation The Singapore version of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory demonstrates evidence of construct validity and inter-rater reliability. The Singapore version of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory can be used by clinicians and researchers to evaluate function in the affected upper extremity for persons with stroke in Singapore.

Reliability and validity of the shortened Singapore versions of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory.

Upper limb deficits are common sequelae after a stroke and negatively affect daily living and quality of life. The use of outcome measures to evaluate upper limb function is essential to assess sensorimotor recovery and to determine the effectiveness of rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to estimate the construct validity and inter-rater reliability of three shortened versions of the Singapore version of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory (CAHAI-SG) comprising seven, eight, and nine test items. The sample consisted of 55 inpatients with acute/subacute stroke to whom the CAHAI-SG, Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) and the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) were administered. To estimate convergent and discriminative construct validity, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and 95% confidence intervals were computed for CAHAI-SG scores with FMA-UE and ARAT scores. Reliability was estimated using intraclass correlation coefficient (relative reliability) and the standard error of measurement (absolute reliability). Convergent validity with the FMA-UE was 0.79, 0.80, and 0.81 for seven-item, eight-item, and nine-item versions of the CAHAI-SG, respectively, and 0.81 with the ARAT for all shortened versions. Discriminative validity with the FMA-UE pain subscale was between 0.37 and 0.38. The absolute reliability was 3.09, 3.65, and 3.98, and relative reliability was 0.96, 0.95, and 0.96 for the seven-item, eight-item, and nine-item versions, respectively. All shortened versions of the CAHAI-SG demonstrated similar psychometric properties to the full (13 item) version, meaning clinicians may use these shorter versions that require less time to administer and score.

Comparison of the sensitivity to change of the Functional Independence Measure with the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills within different rehabilitation populations.

PURPOSE: To determine whether there was a difference in the sensitivity to change of the subscales of the Functional Independence Measure and the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills within three different post-acute inpatient rehabilitation populations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted retrospective chart review of patients consecutively admitted to inpatient rehabilitation units, with both admission and discharge Functional Independence Measure and Assessment of Motor and Process Skills scores. A total of 276 participants were included and categorized into diagnostic groups (orthopedic, oncology, and geriatric). Within group, sensitivity to change was evaluated for the subscales of each measure by calculating the difference in standardized response means (SRM) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: The Functional Independence Measure motor subscale was more sensitive to change than the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills in the orthopedic and geriatric groups (SRMdifference = 1.53 [95% CI 0.93, 2.3] and 0.65 [95% CI 0.3, 1.02], respectively) but not in the oncology group (SRMdifference = 0.42 [95% CI -0.2, 1.04]). For the cognitive subscales, the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills was more sensitive to change than the Functional Independence Measure in all three groups (SRMdifference = 0.38 [95% CI 004, 0.74], 0.65 [95% CI 0.45, 0.90], and 1.15 [95% CI 0.77, 1.69] for orthopedic, geriatric, and oncology, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The Functional Independence Measure is a mandated measure for all rehabilitation units in Canada. As the cognitive subscale of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills is more sensitive to change than the Functional Independence Measure, we recommend also administering the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills to better detect changes in the cognitive aspect of function. Implications for rehabilitation When deciding between the Functional Independence Measure or the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills, it is important to consider whether patients' functional status is expected to change similarly or differently. The difference in sensitivity to change between the subscales of the two outcome measures varies with the characteristics of change (similar or different) in patients' functional status. We recommend using the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills, along with the Functional Independence Measure, for patients who are expected to make similar amounts of change in functional status, as the cognitive subscale of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills is more sensitive to change and can better detect changes in the cognitive aspect of functioning. For patients whose functional status are expected to change differently (diverse diagnoses), the Functional Independence Measure may be more useful as the motor subscale was more sensitive to change when comparing between rehabilitation populations.