Didn't read; prediction crap, useless.
Don't we have any stroke leaders who recognize the fucking stupidity of stroke recovery predictors and stop this research crapola? THEY ARE TOTALLY FUCKING USELESS TO SURVIVORS. Redirect it to actual recovery research creating protocols?
Responsiveness and Predictive Validity of the Hierarchical Balance Short Forms in People With Stroke
Hsueh and Ching-Lin HsiehWan-Hui Yu, Kuan-Lin Chen, Yeh-Tai Chou, I-Ping
PHYS THER. 20132013; 93:798-808.
Originally published online February 7,2013
doi: 10.2522/ptj.20120259
Background.
The lack of knowledge about the responsiveness and predictive validity of a set of Hierarchical Balance Short Forms (the HBSF) in people with stroke limits the utility of the HBSF in both clinical and research settings.
Objective.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the responsiveness and predictive validity of the HBSF in people receiving inpatient rehabilitation after stroke.
Design.
A prospective cohort study was conducted.
Methods.
Sixty-six participants completed both the 6-item HBSF and the 12-itemPostural Assessment Scale for Stroke (PASS) after admission to the rehabilitation ward and before hospital discharge. The standardized effect size (ES) and the standardized response mean (SRM) were used to investigate the internal responsiveness of theHBSF and the PASS. Changes in the Barthel Index and the mobility subscale of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement were used as the external criteria for examining external responsiveness. Moreover, the admission scores on the HBSF and the PASS and the discharge scores on the Barthel Index and mobility subscale of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement were analyzed to investigate the predictive validity of the 2 balance measures.
Results.
The internal responsiveness of the HBSF was high (ES>0.9, SRM>1.6).The SRM of the HBSF was significantly larger than that of the PASS, whereas the ESof the HBSF was not significantly larger than that of the PASS. The external responsiveness and predictive validity of the HBSF were sufficient and similar to those of the PASS (external responsiveness:
r ≥ .35; predictive validity: r ≥ .67).
Limitations.
The convenience sampling of people receiving inpatient rehabilitation after stroke may limit the generalization of the results.
Conclusions.
The HBSF has sufficient responsiveness and predictive validity in people receiving inpatient rehabilitation after stroke and is thus recommended for both clinicians and researchers.
PHYS THER. 20132013; 93:798-808.
Originally published online February 7,2013
doi: 10.2522/ptj.20120259
Background.
The lack of knowledge about the responsiveness and predictive validity of a set of Hierarchical Balance Short Forms (the HBSF) in people with stroke limits the utility of the HBSF in both clinical and research settings.
Objective.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the responsiveness and predictive validity of the HBSF in people receiving inpatient rehabilitation after stroke.
Design.
A prospective cohort study was conducted.
Methods.
Sixty-six participants completed both the 6-item HBSF and the 12-itemPostural Assessment Scale for Stroke (PASS) after admission to the rehabilitation ward and before hospital discharge. The standardized effect size (ES) and the standardized response mean (SRM) were used to investigate the internal responsiveness of theHBSF and the PASS. Changes in the Barthel Index and the mobility subscale of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement were used as the external criteria for examining external responsiveness. Moreover, the admission scores on the HBSF and the PASS and the discharge scores on the Barthel Index and mobility subscale of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement were analyzed to investigate the predictive validity of the 2 balance measures.
Results.
The internal responsiveness of the HBSF was high (ES>0.9, SRM>1.6).The SRM of the HBSF was significantly larger than that of the PASS, whereas the ESof the HBSF was not significantly larger than that of the PASS. The external responsiveness and predictive validity of the HBSF were sufficient and similar to those of the PASS (external responsiveness:
r ≥ .35; predictive validity: r ≥ .67).
Limitations.
The convenience sampling of people receiving inpatient rehabilitation after stroke may limit the generalization of the results.
Conclusions.
The HBSF has sufficient responsiveness and predictive validity in people receiving inpatient rehabilitation after stroke and is thus recommended for both clinicians and researchers.
No comments:
Post a Comment