Search

Purpose: To develop a Singapore version of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory (CAHAI) and to estimate the construct validity and inter-rater reliability. Materials and methods: The Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Objectively Assessed Outcome measure procedure was used to systematically adapt the CAHAI. We recruited 56 adults admitted to an inpatient stroke facility to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Singapore version of the CAHAI. The Singapore version of the CAHAI, Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), and the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) were administered to all participants. We used Spearman's rank correlation coefficients to estimate convergent and discriminative validity, and reliability was estimated using the intra-class correlation coefficient and standard error of measurement. Results: Implementation of the Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Objectively Assessed Outcome measure procedure resulted in the modification to two test items. The Singapore version of the CAHAI demonstrated convergent validity with the FMA-UE (rs= 0.87; 95% CI: 0.76, 0.92) and ARAT (rs = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.63, 0.9). Discriminative validity between the Singapore version of the CAHAI and FMA-UE pain subscale was rs= 0.42 (95% CI: 0.22, 0.59). Reliability of the Singapore version of the CAHAI was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94, 0.99) and standard error of measurement of 4.80 points (95% CI: 4.23, 5.55). Conclusion: The Singapore version of the CAHAI demonstrated good validity and reliability, similar to the properties of the original CAHAI. The Singapore version of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory demonstrates evidence of construct validity and inter-rater reliability. The Singapore version of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory can be used by clinicians and researchers to evaluate function in the affected upper extremity for persons with stroke in Singapore. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine whether there was a difference in the sensitivity to change of the subscales of the Functional Independence Measure and the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills within three different post-acute inpatient rehabilitation populations. Material and methods: We conducted retrospective chart review of patients consecutively admitted to inpatient rehabilitation units, with both admission and discharge Functional Independence Measure and Assessment of Motor and Process Skills scores. A total of 276 participants were included and categorized into diagnostic groups (orthopedic, oncology, and geriatric). Within group, sensitivity to change was evaluated for the subscales of each measure by calculating the difference in standardized response means (SRM) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: The Functional Independence Measure motor subscale was more sensitive to change than the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills in the orthopedic and geriatric groups (SRMdifference = 1.53 [95% CI 0.93, 2.3] and 0.65 [95% CI 0.3, 1.02], respectively) but not in the oncology group (SRMdifference = 0.42 [95% CI −0.2, 1.04]). For the cognitive subscales, the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills was more sensitive to change than the Functional Independence Measure in all three groups (SRMdifference = 0.38 [95% CI 004, 0.74], 0.65 [95% CI 0.45, 0.90], and 1.15 [95% CI 0.77, 1.69] for orthopedic, geriatric, and oncology, respectively). Conclusions: The Functional Independence Measure is a mandated measure for all rehabilitation units in Canada. As the cognitive subscale of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills is more sensitive to change than the Functional Independence Measure, we recommend also administering the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills to better detect changes in the cognitive aspect of function. Implications for rehabilitation: When deciding between the Functional Independence Measure or the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills, it is important to consider whether patients’ functional status is expected to change similarly or differently. The difference in sensitivity to change between the subscales of the two outcome measures varies with the characteristics of change (similar or different) in patients’ functional status. We recommend using the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills, along with the Functional Independence Measure, for patients who are expected to make similar amounts of change in functional status, as the cognitive subscale of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills is more sensitive to change and can better detect changes in the cognitive aspect of functioning. For patients whose functional status are expected to change differently (diverse diagnoses), the Functional Independence Measure may be more useful as the motor subscale was more sensitive to change when comparing between rehabilitation populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]