Urdu translation and cross-cultural validation of the Fugl-Meyer assessment in people with stroke

References

• Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8(8):741–754.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan P. Stroke disability. Phys Ther. 1994;74(5):399–407.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vos T, Lim SS, Abbafati C, et al. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396(10258):1204–1222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan JE, Crowner BE, Kluding PM, et al. G. Outcome measures for individuals with stroke: process and recommendations from the American Physical Therapy Association Neurology Section Task Force. Phys Ther. 2013;93(10):1383–1396.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, et al. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF participation. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27(9):507–528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alt Murphy M, Resteghini C, Feys P, et al. An overview of systematic reviews on upper extremity outcome measures after stroke. BMC Neurol. 2015;15(1):1–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fugl-Meyer AR, Jääskö L, Leyman I, et al. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13–31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gladstone DJ, Danells CJ, Black SE. The Fugl-Meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002;16(3):232–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim TL, Hwang SH, Lee WJ, Hwang JW, et al. The Korean version of the Fugl-Meyer assessment: reliability and validity evaluation. Ann Rehabil Med. 2021;45(2):83–98.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Amano S, Umeji A, Uchita A, et al. Clinimetric properties of the Fugl-Meyer assessment with adapted guidelines for the assessment of arm function in hemiparetic patients after stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2018;25(7):500–508.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maki T, Quagliato E, Cacho E, et al. Estudo de confiabilidade da aplicação da escala de Fugl-Meyer no brasil. Rev Bras Fisioter. 2006;10(2):177–183.
   Google Scholar
• Lundquist CB, Maribo T. The Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper extremity: reliability, responsiveness and validity of the Danish version. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(9):934–939.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbosa NE, Forero SM, Galeano CP, et al. Translation and cultural validation of clinical observational scales–the Fugl-Meyer assessment for post stroke sensorimotor function in Colombian Spanish. J Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(19):2317–2323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cecchi F, Carrabba C, Bertolucci F, et al. Transcultural translation and validation of Fugl–Meyer assessment to Italian. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;1:1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Roman N, Miclaus R, Repanovici A, et al. Equal opportunities for stroke survivors’ rehabilitation: a study on the validity of the upper extremity Fugl-Meyer assessment scale translated and adapted into Romanian. Medicina. 2020;56(8):409.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Busk H, Alt Murphy M, Korsman R, et al. Cross-cultural translation and adaptation of the Danish version of the Fugl-Meyer assessment for post stroke sensorimotor function. Disabil Rehabil. 2021. DOI:10.1080/09638288.2021.1919215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd‐Sherlock P. Stroke in developing countries: epidemiology, impact and policy implications. Develop Pol Rev. 2010;28(6):693–709.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watchravesringkan K. Cross-cultural equivalence of materialistic values scale (MVS): an exploratory study between the United States and Thailand. J Target Meas Anal Mark. 2012;20(3–4):235–253.
   Google Scholar
• Sumathipala A, Murray J. New approach to translating instruments for cross‐cultural research: a combined qualitative and quantitative approach for translation and consensus generation. Int J Method Psychiat Res. 2000;9(2):87–95.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Process of translation and adaptation of instruments [cited 2021 May 25]. Available from: http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/
   Google Scholar
• Waltz CF, Bausell RB. Nursing research: design, statistics, and computer analysis. FA Davis Company; 1981.
   Google Scholar
• Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489–497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nur Res. 1986;35(6):382–385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson JL, Hareendran A, Grant M, et al. Improving the assessment of outcomes in stroke: use of a structured interview to assign grades on the modified Rankin scale. Stroke. 2002;33(9):2243–2246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ortiz GA, L, Sacco R. National institutes of health stroke scale (NIHSS). Wiley Stats. Ref: statistics reference online; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Pallicino P, Snyder W, Granger C. The NIH stroke scale and the FIM in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 1992;23(6):919.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53–55.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull. 1968;70(4):213–220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Portney LG. Correlation. Foundations of clinical research. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson Publishers; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Williams B, Onsman A, Brown T. Exploratory factor analysis: a five-step guide for novices. Aust J Paramed. 2010;8(3):1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Farooq MN, Mohseni-Bandpei MA, Gilani SA, et al. Urdu version of the neck disability index: a reliability and validity study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):149.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hernández ED, Galeano CP, Barbosa NE, et al. Intra-and inter-rater reliability of Fugl-Meyer assessment of upper extremity in stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2019;51(9):652–659.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernández ED, Forero SM, Galeano CP, et al. M. Intra-and interrater reliability of Fugl-Meyer assessment of lower extremity early after stroke. Braz J Phys Ther. 2021. DOI:10.1016/j.bjpt.2020.12.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Meth. 2010;10(1):1–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Michaelsen SM, Rocha AS, Knabben RJ, et al. Translation, adaptation and inter-rater reliability of the administration manual for the Fugl-Meyer assessment. Rev Bras Fisioter. 2011;15(1):80–88.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• See J, Dodakian L, Chou C, et al. A standardized approach to the Fugl-Meyer assessment and its implications for clinical trials. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27(8):732–741.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar