The Fugl–Meyer assessment of the upper extremity: reliability, responsiveness and validity of the Danish version

References

• Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, et al. Executive summary: heart disease and stroke statistics–2012 update: a report from the American heart association. Circulation. 2012;125:188–197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rathore SS, Hinn AR, Cooper LS, et al. Characterization of incident stroke signs and symptoms: findings from the atherosclerosis risk in communities study. Stroke. 2002;33:2718–2721.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakayama H, Jorgensen HS, Raaschou HO, et al. Compensation in recovery of upper extremity function after stroke: the copenhagen stroke study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75:852–857.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, et al. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7:13–31.
   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;16:232–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodbury ML, Velozo CA, Richards LG, et al. Dimensionality and construct validity of the Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper extremity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:715–723.
   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;27:732–741.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nijland R, Kwakkel G, Bakers J, et al. Constraint-induced movement therapy for the upper paretic limb in acute or sub-acute stroke: a systematic review. Int J Stroke. 2011;6:425–433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvey RL, Winstein CJ, Everest Trial Group. Design for the everest randomized trial of cortical stimulation and rehabilitation for arm function following stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:32–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page SJ, Szaflarski JP, Eliassen JC, et al. Cortical plasticity following motor skill learning during mental practice in stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:382–388.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lo AC, Guarino PD, Richards LG, et al. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1772–1783.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saposnik G, Levin M, Outcome Research Canada (SORCan) Working Group. Virtual reality in stroke rehabilitation: a meta-analysis and implications for clinicians. Stroke. 2011;42:1380–1386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krakauer JW. Arm function after stroke: from physiology to recovery. Semin Neurol. 2005;25:384–395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nijland RH, van Wegen EE, Harmeling-van der Wel BC, et al. Presence of finger extension and shoulder abduction within 72 hours after stroke predicts functional recovery: early prediction of functional outcome after stroke: the EPOS cohort study. Stroke. 2010;41:745–750.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KNGF clinical practice guideline for physical therapy in patients with stroke; [Internet] [cited 2015 02.23]. Available from: http://neurorehab.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/stroke_practice_guidelines_2014.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Nasjonal retningslinje for behandling og rehabilitering ved hjerneslag; Helsedirektoratet; Norge; [Internet] [cited 2015 02.23]. Available from: https://helsedirektoratet.no/retningslinjer/nasjonal-faglig-retningslinje-for-behandling-og-rehabilitering-ved-hjerneslag.
   Google Scholar
• Canadian best practice recommendations for stroke care stroke rehabilitation update; [Internet] [cited 2015 02.23]. Available from: http://www.guideline.gov/content.aspx?id=34091.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan PW, Propst M, Nelson SG. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment of sensorimotor recovery following cerebrovascular accident. Phys Ther. 1983;63:1606–1610.
   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;89:840–850.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google 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;15:80–88.
   PubMedGoogle 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;93:2373–2376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Platz T, Pinkowski C, van Wijck F, et al. 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;19:404–411.
   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;42:427–432.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford J, Moreland J, Swanson LR, et al. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment for testing motor performance in patients following stroke. Phys Ther. 1993;73:447–454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arya KN, Verma R, Garg RK. Estimating the minimal clinically important difference of an upper extremity recovery measure in subacute stroke patients. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2011;18 Suppl:599–610.
   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;92:791–798.
   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;87:962–966.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei XJ, Tong KY, Hu XL. The responsiveness and correlation between Fugl-Meyer assessment, motor status scale, and the action research arm test in chronic stroke with upper-extremity rehabilitation robotic training. Int J Rehabil Res. 2011;34:349–356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berglund K, Fugl-Meyer AR. Upper extremity function in hemiplegia. a cross-validation study of two assessment methods. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1986;18:155–157.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hsueh IP, Hsu MJ, Sheu CF, et al. 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;22:737–744.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malouin F, Pichard L, Bonneau C, et al. Evaluating motor recovery early after stroke: comparison of the Fugl-Meyer assessment and the motor assessment scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75:1206–1212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poole JL, Whitney SL. Motor assessment scale for stroke patients: concurrent validity and interrater reliability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988;69:195–197.
   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;60:34–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3186–3191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8:94–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carr JH, Shepherd RB, Nordholm L, et al. Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Phys Ther. 1985;65:175–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lannin N. Reliability, validity and factor structure of the upper limb subscale of the motor assessment scale (UL-MAS) in adults following stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26:109–115.
   Google Scholar
• de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1033–1039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heald SL, Riddle DL, Lamb RL. The shoulder pain and disability index: the construct validity and responsiveness of a region-specific disability measure. Phys Ther. 1997;77:1079–1089.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis. 1986;39:897–906.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Portney LG, Watkins AD. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ) : Julie Levin Alexander; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• van der Lee JH, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, et al. The responsiveness of the action research arm test and the fugl-meyer assessment scale in chronic stroke patients. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33:110–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang CE, Edwards DF, Birkenmeier RL, et al. Estimating minimal clinically important differences of upper-extremity measures early after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:1693–1700.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, et al. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:54–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002;14:109–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krakauer JW. Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol. 2006;19:84–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar