You can see for yourself that nothing in this Wolf Motor Test actually gets you recovered. To me this type of testing is useless except you'll have to consent since it probably is needed to get insurance to pay. To me it would be much more useful to spend my time doing protocol repetitions leading to recovery than this shit.
Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT)
The latest here:
An Evaluation of the Wolf Motor Function Test in Motor Trials Early After Stroke
2012, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Dorothy F. Edwards, PhD, Catherine E. Lang, PT, PhD, Joanne M. Wagner, PT, PhD, Rebecca Birkenmeier, OTD, OTR/L, Alexander W. Dromerick, MD
To examine the internal consistency, validity,responsiveness, and advantages of the Wolf Motor FunctionTest (WMFT) and compare these results to the Action Re-search Arm Test (ARAT) in participants with mild to moderate hemiparesis within the first few months after stroke.
Design:
Data were collected as part of the Very Early Constraint Induced Therapy for Recovery from Stroke (VECTORS) trial, an acute, single-blind randomized controlled trialof constraint-induced movement therapy. Subjects were studied at baseline (day 0), after treatment (day 14), and after 90days (day 90) poststroke.
Setting:
Inpatient rehabilitation hospital; follow-up 3 months post stroke.
Participants:
Hemiparetic subjects (N
51) enrolled in theVECTORS trial.
Intervention:
None.
Main Outcome Measures:
At each time point, subjects were tested on (1) the WMFT and ARAT, (2) clinical measures of sensorimotor impairments, (3) reach and grasp movements performed in the kinematics laboratory, and (4) clinical measures of disability. Blinded raters performed all evaluations.Analyses at each time point included calculating effect size asindicators of responsiveness, and correlation analyses to examine relationships between WMFT scores and other measures.
Results:
The WMFT is internally consistent, valid, and responsive in the early stages of stroke recovery. Sensorimotor and kinematic measures of reach and grasp support the construct validity of the WMFT.
Conclusions:
In an acute stroke population, the WMFT has acceptable reliability, validity, and responsiveness to changeover time. However, when compared with the ARAT, the higher training and testing burdens may not be offset by the relatively small psychometric advantages.
Key Words:
Outcome assessment (health care); Paresis;Rehabilitation; Treatment outcome.©
2012 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine
PERSISTENT LOSS OF upper-extremity (UE) motor function is found in 45% of all stroke survivors, and contributes substantially to stroke-related disability.1 Although there aremany scales developed to assess UE function after stroke, there is no consensus regarding which measure is best suited for routine assessment of patients across the stages of recovery.2,3 The most common standardized measures used in UE treatment studies are the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA)4, the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)5, and the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT)6. The majority of research examining these measures has been conducted in patients in subacute or chronic stages of stroke recovery7-9. Although several studies have examined the reliability and validity of the ARAT and FMA in acute stroke patients2,10, the psychometric characteristics of the WMFT in patients in the acute stage of stroke recovery have not been extensively studied11. The WMFT is widely used in UE treatment studies of persons in the subacute and chronic stages of stroke recovery9,12-14. This scale consists of a series of tasks sequenced according to the joints involved and level of difficulty15. Two items measure strength; the remaining 15 items are rated on the speed of performance and quality of motor ability. The WMFT was developed specifically for the assessment of the effects of constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT)14. Since that time the WMFT has been used in more than 20 studies9. Interrater reliability, internal consistency, content, construct validity, and responsiveness to change have been established for stroke patients in the subacute and chronic stages of recovery6,15,16. The psychometric properties of the scale have not been reported in acute populations studied prior to the 90-daytime point used to define subacute stroke.The purpose of this study is to examine the responsiveness and validity of the WMFT in a population of hemiparetic subjects within the first weeks and months after stroke. We asked (1) how well do the test items measure the same construct of UE function (internal consistency), (2) how responsive is the WMFT to change in the first weeks after stroke and in the first months after stroke, (3) what is the relationship between the WMFT and the ARAT (concurrent validity), and(4) how do WMFT scores relate to sensorimotor impairment measures typically measured by rehabilitation professionals,objective measures of movement quality obtained via kinematic analyses, and disability scores as measured by the FIM(construct validity). The sensorimotor impairment, kinematic,and disability data collected as part of the Very Early Con-straint Induced Therapy for Recovery from Stroke (VEC-TORS) trial provided the information needed to assess con-struct validity of the WMFT.We used both clinimetric and psychometric approaches.Although there is considerable overlap between clinimetric and psychometric methods, clinimetric analyses place greater stress on issues such as sensitivity or responsiveness to clinically relevant change, as well as on clinical utility17,18. Clinical utility refers to ease and efficiency of use, burden on the patient, and meaningfulness of the information that it provides.
Dorothy F. Edwards, PhD, Catherine E. Lang, PT, PhD, Joanne M. Wagner, PT, PhD, Rebecca Birkenmeier, OTD, OTR/L, Alexander W. Dromerick, MD
ABSTRACT.
Objective:To examine the internal consistency, validity,responsiveness, and advantages of the Wolf Motor FunctionTest (WMFT) and compare these results to the Action Re-search Arm Test (ARAT) in participants with mild to moderate hemiparesis within the first few months after stroke.
Design:
Data were collected as part of the Very Early Constraint Induced Therapy for Recovery from Stroke (VECTORS) trial, an acute, single-blind randomized controlled trialof constraint-induced movement therapy. Subjects were studied at baseline (day 0), after treatment (day 14), and after 90days (day 90) poststroke.
Setting:
Inpatient rehabilitation hospital; follow-up 3 months post stroke.
Participants:
Hemiparetic subjects (N
51) enrolled in theVECTORS trial.
Intervention:
None.
Main Outcome Measures:
At each time point, subjects were tested on (1) the WMFT and ARAT, (2) clinical measures of sensorimotor impairments, (3) reach and grasp movements performed in the kinematics laboratory, and (4) clinical measures of disability. Blinded raters performed all evaluations.Analyses at each time point included calculating effect size asindicators of responsiveness, and correlation analyses to examine relationships between WMFT scores and other measures.
Results:
The WMFT is internally consistent, valid, and responsive in the early stages of stroke recovery. Sensorimotor and kinematic measures of reach and grasp support the construct validity of the WMFT.
Conclusions:
In an acute stroke population, the WMFT has acceptable reliability, validity, and responsiveness to changeover time. However, when compared with the ARAT, the higher training and testing burdens may not be offset by the relatively small psychometric advantages.
Key Words:
Outcome assessment (health care); Paresis;Rehabilitation; Treatment outcome.©
2012 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine
PERSISTENT LOSS OF upper-extremity (UE) motor function is found in 45% of all stroke survivors, and contributes substantially to stroke-related disability.1 Although there aremany scales developed to assess UE function after stroke, there is no consensus regarding which measure is best suited for routine assessment of patients across the stages of recovery.2,3 The most common standardized measures used in UE treatment studies are the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA)4, the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)5, and the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT)6. The majority of research examining these measures has been conducted in patients in subacute or chronic stages of stroke recovery7-9. Although several studies have examined the reliability and validity of the ARAT and FMA in acute stroke patients2,10, the psychometric characteristics of the WMFT in patients in the acute stage of stroke recovery have not been extensively studied11. The WMFT is widely used in UE treatment studies of persons in the subacute and chronic stages of stroke recovery9,12-14. This scale consists of a series of tasks sequenced according to the joints involved and level of difficulty15. Two items measure strength; the remaining 15 items are rated on the speed of performance and quality of motor ability. The WMFT was developed specifically for the assessment of the effects of constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT)14. Since that time the WMFT has been used in more than 20 studies9. Interrater reliability, internal consistency, content, construct validity, and responsiveness to change have been established for stroke patients in the subacute and chronic stages of recovery6,15,16. The psychometric properties of the scale have not been reported in acute populations studied prior to the 90-daytime point used to define subacute stroke.The purpose of this study is to examine the responsiveness and validity of the WMFT in a population of hemiparetic subjects within the first weeks and months after stroke. We asked (1) how well do the test items measure the same construct of UE function (internal consistency), (2) how responsive is the WMFT to change in the first weeks after stroke and in the first months after stroke, (3) what is the relationship between the WMFT and the ARAT (concurrent validity), and(4) how do WMFT scores relate to sensorimotor impairment measures typically measured by rehabilitation professionals,objective measures of movement quality obtained via kinematic analyses, and disability scores as measured by the FIM(construct validity). The sensorimotor impairment, kinematic,and disability data collected as part of the Very Early Con-straint Induced Therapy for Recovery from Stroke (VEC-TORS) trial provided the information needed to assess con-struct validity of the WMFT.We used both clinimetric and psychometric approaches.Although there is considerable overlap between clinimetric and psychometric methods, clinimetric analyses place greater stress on issues such as sensitivity or responsiveness to clinically relevant change, as well as on clinical utility17,18. Clinical utility refers to ease and efficiency of use, burden on the patient, and meaningfulness of the information that it provides.
No comments:
Post a Comment