Validity of Robot-Based Assessments of Upper Extremity Function.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity of 5 robot-based assessments of arm motor function poststroke. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Outpatient clinical research center. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteer sample of participants (N=40; age, >18y; 3-6mo poststroke) with arm motor deficits that had reached a stable plateau. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical standards included the arm motor domain of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) and 5 secondary motor outcomes: hand/wrist subsection of the arm motor domain of the FMA, Action Research Arm Test, Box and Block test (BBT), hand motor subscale of the Stroke Impact Scale Version 2.0, and Barthel Index. Robot-based assessments included wrist targeting, finger targeting, finger movement speed, reaction time, and a robotic version of the BBT. Anatomical measures included percent injury to the corticospinal tract (CST) and extent of injury of the hand region of the primary motor cortex obtained from magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: Participants had moderate to severe impairment (arm motor domain of the FMA scores, 35.6±14.4; range, 13.5-60). Performance on the robot-based tests, including speed (r=.82; P<.0001), wrist targeting (r=.72; P<.0001), and finger targeting (r=.67; P<.0001), correlated significantly with the arm motor domain of the FMA scores. Wrist targeting (r=.57-.82) and finger targeting (r=.49-.68) correlated significantly with all 5 secondary motor outcomes and with percent CST injury. The robotic version of the BBT correlated significantly with the clinical BBT but was less prone to floor effects. Robot-based assessments were comparable to the arm motor domain of the FMA score in relation to percent CST injury and superior in relation to extent of injury to the hand region of the primary motor cortex. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings support using a battery of robot-based methods for assessing the upper extremity motor function in participants with chronic stroke.

Timing and directions for administration of questionnaires affect outcomes measurement.

We used data from two pilot studies to compare the change in patients' self-reported health-related quality of life after participation in two nearly identical Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Blind Rehabilitation Center (BRC) programs, the Southwestern BRC in Tucson, Arizona, and the BRC at the VA hospital in Hines, Illinois. Researchers at the Southwestern BRC administered the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire as directed by the developer. Researchers at the Hines BRC modified the directions to consider use of low-vision devices. Interval person-ability and item-difficulty measures estimated from patient responses pre- and postrehabilitation were compared with these same measures obtained at follow-up. At the Southwestern BRC, no change was reported in either person or item measures 3 months after rehabilitation. At the Hines BRC, improvement was seen in both the person and item measures when measurements were made immediately following rehabilitation. Because a temporary halo effect may explain the higher ratings at discharge, veterans from the Hines cohort were contacted by telephone and administered the same instrument 3 years later. For these subjects, the improvement noted in the person measure disappeared at follow-up, while the improvement in the item measure was maintained.

Evaluating psychometric properties of a clinical and a self-report blind rehabilitation outcome measure.

This study assessed the psychometric properties and evaluated the compatibility of two blind and low-vision rehabilitation outcome instruments, the VA-13 and the Functional Assessment of Self-Reliance on Tasks (FAST). Legally blind veterans (N = 190) from a Department of Veterans Affairs inpatient blind rehabilitation center completed the VA-13 (a retrospective pretest and posttest) at 6 weeks postdischarge. Clinicians rated veterans on the FAST at admission and discharge. The psychometric properties of the two instruments and their compatibility were evaluated with the use of a Rasch model analysis. The two instruments functioned consistently as screens and showed a ceiling effect at posttest; however, the VA-13 showed poor sensitivity to change. In contrast, the FAST showed more reliable change, but a few items changed in unexpected ways. Our conclusions show that the two instruments are currently not compatible for calibration; however, this can be improved with proper attention to scaling inadequacies, test administration times, and content coverage.