Path tree analysis as a tool for describing motor recovery following acquired brain injury: An exploratory study

References

• McGraw M B. The neuromuscular maturation of the human infant. Columbia University Press, New York 1943
   Google Scholar
• Gessel A, Armatruda C S. Developmental diagnosis. Hoeber, New York 1947
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths R. The abilities of babies. University of London Press, London 1954
   Google Scholar
• Sheridan M D. The developmental progress of infants and young children. HMSO, London 1960
   Google Scholar
• Super C M. Environmental effects on motor development: the case of ‘African infant precocity’. Dev Med Child Neurol 1976; 18: 561–567
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capute A J, Shapiro B K, Palmer F B, Ross A, Wachtel R C. Normal gross motor development: the influences of race, sex and socio-economic status. Dev Med Child Neurol 1985; 27: 635–643
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bril B, Sabatier C. The cultural context of motor development: postural manipulations in the daily life of Bambari babies (Mali). Int J Behav Devel 1986; 9: 439–453
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cintas H M. Cross-cultural variation in infant motor development. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 1988; 8: 1–20
   Google Scholar
• Hopkins B, Westra T. Maternal handling and motor development: an intracultural study. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr 1988; 114: 377–408
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Twitchell T E. The restoration of motor function following hemiplegia in man. Brain 1951; 74: 443–480
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wade D T, Hewer R L. Functional abilities after stroke: measurement, natural history and prognosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1987; 50: 177–182
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partridge C J, Johnston M, Edwards S. Recovery from physical disability after stroke: normal patterns as a basis for evaluation. Lancet 1987; i: 373–375
   Google Scholar
• Partridge C J. Describing patterns of recovery as a basis for evaluating progress. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1992; 8: 55–61
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Partridge C J, Morris L W, Edwards S M. Recovery from physical disability after stroke: profiles for different levels of starting severity. Clin Rehabil 1993; 7: 210–217
   Google Scholar
• Swaine B R, Sullivan S J. Longitudinal profile of early motor recovery following severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 1996; 10: 347–366
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parry A. Development and evaluation of the Sheffield Motor Assessment Chart. Sheffield Hallam University, SheffieldUK 1982
   Google Scholar
• Parry A. The Sheffield Motor Assessment Chart Folder. Ciba Laboratories, SurreyUK 1984
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln N, Leadbitter D. Assessment of motor function in stroke patients. Physiotherapy 1979; 65: 48–51
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Collen F M, Wade D T, Robb G F, Bradshaw C M. The Rivermead Mobility Index: a further development of the Rivermead Motor Assessment. Int Disabil Stud 1991; 13: 50–54
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guttman L. The basis for scalogram analysis. Measurment and prediction, S A Stouffer. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 1950; IV: 60–90
   Google Scholar
• Guttman L. The basis for scalogram analysis. A sourcebook for behavioural scientists, G M Maranell. Aldine, Chicago, IL 1974
   Google Scholar
• Adams S A, Pickering R M, Ashburn A, Lincoln N B. The scalability of the Rivermead Motor Assessment in nonacute stroke patients. Clin Rehabil 1997; 11: 52–59
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams S A, Ashburn A, Pickering R M, Taylor D. The scalability of the Rivermead Motor Assessment in acute stroke patients. Clin Rehabil 1997; 11: 42–51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franchignoni F, Tesio L, Benevolo E, Ottonello M. Psychometric properties of the Rivermead Mobility Index in Italian stroke rehabilitation inpatients. Clin Rehabil 2003; 17: 273–282
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson M J, Horn S. Paired preferences technique: an alternative method for investigating sequences of recovery in assessment scales. Clin Rehabil 1992; 6: 170
   Google Scholar
• Watson M J, Horn S A, Wilson B A, Shiel A, McLellan D L. The application of a paired comparisons technique to identify sequence of recovery after severe head injury. Neuropsychol Rehabil 1997; 7: 441–458
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antonucci G, Aprile T, Paolucci S. Rasch analysis of the Rivermead Mobility Index: a study using mobility measures of first-stroke inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 1442–1449
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wade D T. Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1992
   Google Scholar
• Nouri F M, Lincoln N B. An extended activities of daily living scale for stroke patients. Clin Rehabil 1987; 1: 301–305
   Google Scholar
• Barer D H, Murphy J J. Scaling the Barthel: a 10-point hierarchical version of the activities of daily living index for use with stroke patients. Clin Rehabil 1993; 7: 271–277
   Google Scholar
• Williams R G, Johnston M, Willis L A, Bennett A E. Disability: a model and measurement technique. Br J Prev Soc Med 1976; 30: 71–78
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Menzel H. A new coefficient for scalogram analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 1953; 17: 268–280
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schindl M R, Forstner C, Kern H, Zipko H T, Rupp M, Zifko U A. Evaluation of a German version of the Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) in acute and chronic stroke patients. Eur J Neurol 2000; 7: 523–528
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green J, Forster A, Young J. A test-retest reliability study of the Barthel Index, the Rivermead Mobility Index, the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale and the Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients. Disabil Rehabil 2001; 23: 670–676
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forlander D A, Bohannon R W. Rivermead Mobility Index: a brief review of research to date. Clin Rehabil 1999; 13: 97–100
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossier P, Wade D T. Validity and reliability comparison of 4 mobility measures in patients presenting with neurologic impairment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 9–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson M J. Do patients with severe traumatic brain injury benefit from physiotherapy? A review of the evidence. Phys Ther Rev 2001; 6: 233–249
   Google Scholar
• Medical Disability Society. The Management of Traumatic Brain Injury: a working party report of the Medical Disability Society. The Medical Disability Society (Royal College of Physicians), London 1988
   Google Scholar
• Shiel A, Horn S A, Wilson B A, Watson M J, Campbell M J, McLellan D L. The Wessex Head Injury Matrix (WHIM) main scale: a preliminary report on a scale to assess and monitor patient recovery after severe head injury. Clin Rehabil 2000; 14: 408–416
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silverstein B, Kilgore K M, Fisher W P, Harley J P, Harvey R F. Applying psychometric criteria to functional assessment in medical rehabilitation: I. Exploring unidimensionality. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1991; 72: 631–637
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brainerd C J. The stage question in cognitive-development theory. Behav Brain Sci 1978; 1: 173–213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar