Clinimetric properties of the Fugl-Meyer assessment with adapted guidelines for the assessment of arm function in hemiparetic patients after stroke

References

• Winstein CJ, Stein J, Arena R, et al. Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American heart association/American stroke association. Stroke. 2016;47(6):e98–e169.10.1161/STR.0000000000000098
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Putten JJ, Hobart JC, Freeman JA, Thompson AJ. Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel index and the functional independence measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999;66(4):480–484.10.1136/jnnp.66.4.480
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker K, Cano SJ, Playford ED. Outcome measurement in stroke: a scale selection strategy. Stroke. 2011;42(6):1787–1794.10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.608505
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13–31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Platz T. ARM, Arm rehabilitation measurement: manual for performance and scoring of the Fugl-Meyer test (arm section), action research Arm test, and the box-and-block test. Baden-Baden: Deutscher Wissenschafts-Verlag; 2005.
   Google 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):232–240.10.1177/154596802401105171
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santisteban L, Teremetz M, Bleton JP, Baron JC, Maier MA, Lindberg PG. Upper limb outcome measures used in stroke rehabilitation studies: a systematic literature review. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0154792.10.1371/journal.pone.0154792
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan PW, Propst M, Nelson SG. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment of sensorimotor recovery following cerebrovascular accident. Phys Ther. 1983;63(10):1606–1610.10.1093/ptj/63.10.1606
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford J, Moreland J, Swanson LR, Stratford PW, Gowland C. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment for testing motor performance in patients following stroke. Phys Ther. 1993;73(7):447–454.10.1093/ptj/73.7.447
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan kJ, Tilson JK, Cen SY, et al. Fugl-Meyer assessment of sensorimotor function after stroke: standardized training procedure for clinical practice and clinical trials. Stroke. 2011;42(2):427–432.10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.592766
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google 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):732–741.10.1177/1545968313491000
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page SJ, Fulk GD, Boyne P. Clinically important differences for the upper-extremity Fugl-Meyer scale in people with minimal to moderate impairment due to chronic stroke. Phys Ther. 2012;92(6):791–798.10.2522/ptj.20110009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page SJ, Levine P, Hade E. Psychometric properties and administration of the wrist/hand subscales of the Fugl-Meyer assessment in minimally impaired upper extremity hemiparesis in stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(12):2373–2376.e5.10.1016/j.apmr.2012.06.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaelsen SM, Rocha AS, Knabben RJ, Rodrigues LP, Fernandes CG. Translation, adaptation and inter-rater reliability of the administration manual for the Fugl-Meyer assessment. Revista Brasileira de Fisioterapia (Sao Carlos (Sao Paulo, Brazil)). 2011;15(1):80–88.10.1590/S1413-35552011000100013
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lundquist CB, Maribo T. The Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper extremity: reliability, responsiveness and validity of the Danish version. Disability Rehabil. 2017;39(9):934–939.10.3109/09638288.2016.1163422
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186–3191.10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukuhara S, Bito S, Green J, Hsiao A, Kurokawa K. Translation, adaptation, and validation of the SF-36 health survey for use in Japan. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):1037–1044.10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00095-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin JH, Hsu MJ, Sheu CF, et al. Psychometric comparisons of 4 measures for assessing upper-extremity function in people with stroke. Phys Ther. 2009;89(8):840–850.10.2522/ptj.20080285
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen HM, Chen CC, Hsueh IP, Huang SL, Hsieh CL. Test-retest reproducibility and smallest real difference of 5 hand function tests in patients with stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23(5):435–440.10.1177/1545968308331146
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Platz T, Pinkowski C, van Wijck F, Kim IH, di Bella P, Johnson G. Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test: a multicentre study. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19(4):404–411.10.1191/0269215505cr832oa
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabadi MH, Rabadi FM. Comparison of the action research arm test and the Fugl-Meyer Assessment as measures of upper-extremity motor weakness after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(7):962–966.10.1016/j.apmr.2006.02.036
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsueh IP, Hsu MJ, Sheu CF, Lee S, Hsieh CL, Lin JH. Psychometric comparisons of 2 versions of the Fugl-Meyer motor scale and 2 versions of the stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22(6):737–744.10.1177/1545968308315999
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uswatte G, Taub E, Morris D, Vignolo M, McCulloch K. Reliability and validity of the upper-extremity motor activity log-14 for measuring real-world arm use. Stroke. 2005;36(11):2493–2496.10.1161/01.STR.0000185928.90848.2e
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropractic Med. 2016;15(2):155–163.10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arwert HJ, Keizer S, Kromme CH, Vliet Vlieland TP, Meesters JJ. Validity of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(2):238–244.10.1016/j.apmr.2015.09.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonett DG. Sample size requirements for estimating intraclass correlations with desired precision. Stat Med. 2002;21(9):1331–1335.10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0258
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Portney L, Watkins M. Foundations of clinical research: application to practice. Stamford: Appleton & Lange; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174.10.2307/2529310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smidt N, van der Windt DA, Assendelft WJ, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the assessment of severity of complaints, grip strength, and pressure pain threshold in patients with lateral epicondylitis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(8):1145–1150.10.1053/apmr.2002.33728
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar