Equal Opportunities for Stroke Survivors’ Rehabilitation: A Study on the Validity of the Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale Translated and Adapted into Romanian
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
2.2. Study Participants
2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Johnson, W.; Onuma, O.; Owolabi, M.; Sachdev, S. Stroke: A global response is needed. Bull. World Health Organ. 2016, 94, 634–634A. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kassner, S.E. Clinical interpretation and use of stroke scales. Lancet Neurol. 2006, 5, 603–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winward, C.E.; Halligan, P.W.; Wade, D.T. Current practice and clinical relevance of somatosensory assessment after stroke. Clin. Rehabil. 1999, 13, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brashear, A.; Zafonte, R.; Corcoran, M.; Galvez-Jimenez, N.; Gracies, J.-M.; Gordon, M.F.; McAfee, A.; Ruffing, K.; Thompson, B.; Williams, M.; et al. Inter- and intrarater reliability of the Ashworth Scale and the Disability Assessment Scale in patients with upper-limb poststroke spasticity. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2002, 83, 1349–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dromerick, A.W.; Edwards, D.F.; Diringer, M.N. Sensitivity to changes in disability after stroke: A comparison of four scales useful in clinical trials. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2003, 40, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bennett, H.E.; Thomas, S.A.; Austen, R.; Morris, A.M.S.; Lincoln, N.B. Validation of screening measures for assessing mood in stroke patients. Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 2006, 45, 367–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwon, S.; Hartzema, A.G.; Duncan, P.W.; Min-Lai, S. Disability Measures in Stroke. Stroke 2004, 35, 918–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lang, C.E.; Bland, M.D.; Bailey, R.R.; Schaefer, S.Y.; Birkenmeier, R.L. Assessment of upper extremity impairment, function, and activity after stroke: Foundations for clinical decision making. J. Hand Ther. 2013, 26, 104–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gladstone, D.J.; Danells, C.J.; Black, S.E. The fugl-meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: A critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 2002, 16, 232–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, J.; Forster, A. Review of stroke rehabilitation. BMJ Clin. Res. Ed. 2007, 334, 86–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Winstein, C.J.; Stein, J.; Arena, R.; Bates, B.; Cherney, L.R.; Cramer, S.C.; Deruyter, F.; Eng, J.J.; Fisher, B.; Harvey, R.L.; et al. Guidelines for Adult Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery. Stroke 2016, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salter, K.; Campbell, N.; Richardson, M.; Mehta, S.; Jutai, J.; Zettler, L.; Moses, M.; McClure, A.; Mays, R.; Foley, N.; et al. Outcome Measures in Stroke Rehabilitation. In Evidence-Based Review of Stroke Rehabilitation; 2013; Volume 1, Chapter 20; pp. 20–22. Available online: http://www.ebrsr.com/sites/default/files/Chapter%2020_Outcome%20Measures.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2019).
- Kim, W.S.; Cho, S.; Baek, D.; Bang, H.; Paik, N.J. Upper extremity functional evaluation by fugl-meyer assessment scoring using depth-sensing camera in hemiplegic stroke patients. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0158640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fugl-Meyer, A.R.; Jääskö, L.; Leyman, I.; Olsson, S.; Steglind, S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand. J. Rehabil. Med. 1975, 7, 13–31. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Mao, H.F.; Hsueh, I.P.; Tang, P.F.; Sheu, C.F.; Hsieh, C.L. Analysis and comparison of the psychometric properties of three balance measures for stroke patients. Stroke 2002, 33, 1022–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hsueh, I.P.; Lee, M.M.; Hsieh, C.L. Psychometric characteristics of the Barthel activities of daily living index in stroke patients. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 2001, 100, 526–532. [Google Scholar]
- Hsieh, Y.-W.; Wu, C.-Y.; Lin, K.-C.; Chang, Y.-F.; Chen, C.-L.; Liu, J.-S. Responsiveness and validity of three outcome measures of motor function after stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 2009, 40, 1386–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wei, X.-J.; Tong, K.-Y.; Hu, X.-L. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woodbury, M.L.; Velozo, C.A.; Richards, L.G.; Duncan, P.W.; Studenski, S.; Lai, S.-M. Dimensionality and construct validity of the fugl-meyer assessment of the upper extremity. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2007, 88, 715–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velozo, C.A.; Woodbury, M.L. Translating measurement findings into rehabilitation practice: An example using Fugl-meyer assessment-upper extremity with patients following stroke. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2011, 48, 1211–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riklikienė, O.; Spirgienė, L.; Kaselienė, S.; Luneckaitė, Ž.; Tomkevičiūtė, J.; Büssing, A. Translation, cultural, and clinical validation of the lithuanian version of the spiritual needs questionnaire among hospitalized cancer patients. Medicina 2019, 55, 738. [Google Scholar]
- Glinkowski, W.; Żukowska, A.; Dymitrowicz, M.; Wołyniec, E.; Glinkowska, B.; Kozioł-Kaczorek, D. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and psychometric properties of the polish version of the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS). Medicina 2019, 55, 614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Černovas, A.; Alekna, V.; Tamulaitienė, M.; Stukas, R. Reliability and validity of the lithuanian version of CASP-19: A quality of life questionnaire for the elderly. Medicina 2018, 54, 103. [Google Scholar]
- Zasadzka, E.; Pieczyńska, A.; Trzmiel, T.; Pawlaczyk, M. Polish translation and validation of the SARC-F tool for the assessment of sarcopenia. Clin. Interv. Aging. 2020, 15, 567–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Faleide, A.G.H.; Inderhaug, E.; Vervaat, W.; Breivik, k.; Bogen, B.; Mo, I.F.; Troan, I.; Strand, T.; Magnussen, L.H. Anterior cruciate ligament-return to sport after injury scale: Validation of the Norwegian language version [published online ahead of print, 15 February 2020]. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cecchi, F.; Carrabba, C.; Bertolucci, F.; Castagnoli, C.; Falsini, C.; Gnetti, B.; Hochleitner, I.; Lucidi, G.; Martini, M.; Mosca, I.E.; et al. Transcultural translation and validation of fugl–meyer assessment to Italian. Disabil. Rehabil. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbosa, N.E.; Forero, S.M.; Galeano, C.P.; Hernández, E.D.; Landinez, N.S.; Sunnerhagen, K.S.; Alt Murphy, M. Translation and cultural validation of clinical observational scales—The Fugl-Meyer assessment for post stroke sensorimotor function in Colombian Spanish. Disabil. Rehabil. 2019, 41, 2317–2323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lundquist, C.B.; Maribo, T. The Fugl–Meyer assessment of the upper extremity: Reliability, responsiveness and validity of the Danish version. Disabil. Rehabil. 2017, 39, 934–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hernández, E.D.; Galeano, C.P.; Barbosa, N.E.; Forero, S.M.; Nordin, A.; Sunnerhagen, K.S.; Alt Murphy, M. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of Fugl-Meyer assessment of upper extremity in stroke. J. Rehabil. Med. 2019, 51, 652–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sousa, V.D.; Rojjanasrirat, W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user-friendly guideline. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2011, 17, 268–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, J.E. Quartimax rotation. Wiley StatsRef. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howard, M.C. A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: What we are doing and how can we improve? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Int. 2016, 32, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, J.M. Overview and illustration of bayesian confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal indicators. pract. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2019, 24, 1–27. [Google Scholar]
- Koyuncu, I.; Kılıç, A.F. The use of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses: A document analysis. Ted Eğitim Ve Bilim 2019, 44, 361–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amano, S.; Umeji, A.; Uchita, A.; Hashimoto, Y.; Takebayashi, T.; Takahashi, K.; Uchiyama, Y.; Domen, K. Clinimetric properties of the Fugl-Meyer assessment with adapted guidelines for the assessment of arm function in hemiparetic patients after stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2018, 25, 500–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferraro, M.; Hogan, J.; Krol, J.; Trudell, C.; Rannekleiv, K.; Edelstein, L.; Christos, P.; Aisen, M.L.; England, J. Assessing the motor status score: A scale for the evaluation of upper limb motor outcomes in patients after stroke. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 2002, 16, 283–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Platz, T.; Pinkowski, C.; Wijck, F.V.; Kim, I.-H.; Bella, P.D.; 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, 404–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arafat, S.; Chowdhury, H.; Qusar, M.; Hafez, M. Cross cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of research instruments: A methodological review. J. Behav. Health 2016, 5, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cevei, M.; Onofrei, R.R.; Cioara, F.; Stoicanescu, D. Correlations between the quality of life domains and clinical variables in sarcopenic osteoporotic postmenopausal women. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Olesh, E.V.; Yakovenko, S.; Gritsenko, V. Automated assessment of upper extremity movement impairment due to stroke. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e104487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lemmens, R.J.M.; Timmermans, A.A.A.; Janssen-Potten, Y.J.M.; Pulles, S.A.N.T.D.; Geers, R.P.J.; Bakx, W.G.M.; Seelen, H.A.M. Accelerometry measuring the outcome of robot-supported upper limb training in chronic stroke: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e96414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Communalities | Rotated Factor Matrix | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Initial | Extraction | Factor | 1 | |
AII1 | 0.947 | 0.849 | C2 | 0.907 |
AII2 | 0.917 | 0.756 | B2 | 0.901 |
AII3 | 0.860 | 0.732 | C1 | 0.890 |
AII4 | 0.823 | 0.675 | B1 | 0.887 |
AII5 | 0.903 | 0.826 | AII.8 | 0.879 |
AII6 | 0.922 | 0.785 | B2 | 0.878 |
AII7 | 0.966 | 0.955 | AII.9 | 0.869 |
90 AII8 | 0.937 | 0.842 | B3 | 0.861 |
AII9 | 0.970 | 0.941 | AII.7 | 0.852 |
AIII 1 | 0.869 | 0.649 | AII.6 | 0.847 |
AIII 2 | 0.918 | 0.754 | AII.5 | 0.832 |
AIII 3 | 0.895 | 0.744 | AIV.3 | 0.828 |
AIV1 | 0.898 | 0.763 | AIII. 3 | 0.824 |
AIV2 | 0.929 | 0.777 | AIII.2 | 0.817 |
AIV3 | 0.858 | 0.740 | AIV.2 | 0.814 |
B1 | 0.926 | 0.820 | AIV.1 | 0.808 |
B2 | 0.945 | 0.888 | D3 | 0.769 |
B3 | 0.905 | 0.801 | C3e | 0.768 |
B4 | 0.927 | 0.832 | C3d | 0.751 |
B5 | 0.750 | 0.576 | AII.1 | 0.749 |
C1 | 0.957 | 0.895 | C3b | 0.746 |
C2 | 0.956 | 0.891 | C3a | 0.745 |
C3a | 0.877 | 0.813 | B5 | 0.744 |
C3b | 0.937 | 0.808 | D2 | 0.719 |
C3c | 0.850 | 0.708 | AII.2 | 0.710 |
C3d | 0.936 | 0.862 | AIII. 1 | 0.698 |
C3e | 0.944 | 0.805 | D1 | 0.696 |
D1 | 0.866 | 0.652 | AII.3 | 0.695 |
D2 | 0.902 | 0.680 | C3c | 0.683 |
D3 | 0.815 | 0.692 | AII.4 | 0.680 |
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient | Cronbach Alpha | Concurrent Correlation | Standardized Response Mean | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ICC b | 95% CI | F Test | 0.981 | FIM | MRS | 1.1171 | ||||
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | Sig | Mean | SD | Pearson/ Sig | Pearson/ Sig | 95% CI | |||
Upper Bound | Lower Bound | |||||||||
Single Measures | 0.984 a | 0.974 | 0.990 | <0.001 | 32.750 | 17.9718 | 0.789/ <0.001 | −0.787/ <0.001 | 0.9394 | 1.2695 |
Average Measures | 0.992 c | 0.987 | 0.995 | <0.001 |
Root Mean Square Residual | Godness of Fit | Baseline Comparisons | Parsimony–Adjusted Measures | |
---|---|---|---|---|
RMR | GFI | NFI | RFI | PNFI |
0.051 | 0.980 | 0.978 | 0.977 | 0.911 |
Mean | S.E. | S.D. | C.S. | Median | 95% Lower Bound | 95% Upper Bound | SkewNess | Kurtosis | Min | Max | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Regression Weights | |||||||||||
AIV. 2 ← UE | 0.906 | 0.005 | 0.122 | 1.001 | 0.904 | 0.678 | 1.154 | 0.201 | 0.100 | 0.514 | 1.420 |
D 3 ← UE | 0.747 | 0.005 | 0.105 | 1.001 | 0.742 | 0.552 | 0.961 | 0.218 | 0.118 | 0.407 | 1.175 |
AII.8 ← UE | 1.067 | 0.005 | 0.119 | 1.001 | 1.061 | 0.847 | 1.324 | 0.288 | 0.199 | 0.604 | 1.617 |
AII.4 ← UE | 0.601 | 0.004 | 0.104 | 1.001 | 0.597 | 0.404 | 0.814 | 0.150 | 0.159 | 0.165 | 1.104 |
C3d ← UE | 0.960 | 0.006 | 0.134 | 1.001 | 0.955 | 0.711 | 1.242 | 0.239 | 0.308 | 0.474 | 1.552 |
B2 ← UE | 1.185 | 0.007 | 0.136 | 1.001 | 1.179 | 0.924 | 1.474 | 0.217 | 0.250 | 0.720 | 1.728 |
AIII.2 ← UE | 0.972 | 0.006 | 0.124 | 1.001 | 0.969 | 0.736 | 1.230 | 0.281 | 0.619 | 0.552 | 1.595 |
C3.e ← UE | 0.989 | 0.006 | 0.138 | 1.001 | 0.985 | 0.730 | 1.271 | 0.124 | 0.376 | 0.412 | 1.578 |
D2 ← UE | 0.923 | 0.007 | 0.144 | 1.001 | 0.919 | 0.650 | 1.222 | 0.110 | 0.233 | 0.308 | 1.447 |
C3c← UE | 0.739 | 0.004 | 0.119 | 1.001 | 0.735 | 0.516 | 0.981 | 0.175 | 0.107 | 0.323 | 1.258 |
C3a← UE | 0.954 | 0.008 | 0.142 | 1.002 | 0.948 | 0.692 | 1.248 | 0.223 | 0.047 | 0.430 | 1.512 |
AII.2 ← UE | 0.671 | 0.004 | 0.114 | 1.001 | 0.669 | 0.458 | 0.905 | 0.114 | -0.070 | 0.292 | 1.084 |
AII.3← UE | 0.594 | 0.005 | 0.102 | 1.001 | 0.591 | 0.400 | 0.801 | 0.179 | 0.353 | 0.188 | 1.027 |
AII.6 ← UE | 1.088 | 0.005 | 0.129 | 1.001 | 1.081 | 0.850 | 1.355 | 0.233 | 0.202 | 0.626 | 1.629 |
AII.5 ← UE | 1.088 | 0.006 | 0.128 | 1.001 | 1.083 | 0.850 | 1.353 | 0.198 | 0.033 | 0.633 | 1.571 |
AII.7 ← UE | 1.063 | 0.004 | 0.123 | 1.001 | 1.061 | 0.826 | 1.316 | 0.176 | 0.372 | 0.607 | 1.586 |
AII.9 ← UE | 1.145 | 0.006 | 0.125 | 1.001 | 1.138 | 0.921 | 1.406 | 0.359 | 0.321 | 0.737 | 1.691 |
AIII.1 ← UE | 0.787 | 0.007 | 0.130 | 1.002 | 0.780 | 0.553 | 1.071 | 0.319 | 0.299 | 0.300 | 1.330 |
AIII.3 ← UE | 1.006 | 0.005 | 0.121 | 1.001 | 1.000 | 0.788 | 1.259 | 0.339 | 0.298 | 0.631 | 1.571 |
AIV.1 ← UE | 0.746 | 0.004 | 0.101 | 1.001 | 0.741 | 0.565 | 0.964 | 0.472 | 0.816 | 0.408 | 1.244 |
AIV.3 ← UE | 1.014 | 0.005 | 0.129 | 1.001 | 1.013 | 0.766 | 1.277 | 0.118 | 0.107 | 0.543 | 1.474 |
B1 ← UE | 1.198 | 0.007 | 0.134 | 1.001 | 1.193 | 0.946 | 1.484 | 0.238 | 0.313 | 0.731 | 1.788 |
B3 ← UE | 1.036 | 0.006 | 0.125 | 1.001 | 1.032 | 0.804 | 1.299 | 0.218 | -0.013 | 0.628 | 1.498 |
B4 ← UE | 1.040 | 0.005 | 0.120 | 1.001 | 1.035 | 0.817 | 1.293 | 0.273 | 0.219 | 0.619 | 1.598 |
B5 ← UE | 0.747 | 0.007 | 0.118 | 1.002 | 0.741 | 0.538 | 0.998 | 0.354 | 0.259 | 0.359 | 1.225 |
C1 ← UE | 1.164 | 0.005 | 0.123 | 1.001 | 1.159 | 0.942 | 1.421 | 0.274 | 0.132 | 0.752 | 1.655 |
C2 ← UE | 1,178 | 0.005 | 0.121 | 1.001 | 1.172 | 0.957 | 1.439 | 0.401 | 0.617 | 0.729 | 1.749 |
D1 ← UE | 0,858 | 0.005 | 0.142 | 1.001 | 0.851 | 0.595 | 1.148 | 0.220 | 0.044 | 0.351 | 1.492 |
C3B ← UE | 0,878 | 0.006 | 0.126 | 1.001 | 0.877 | 0.644 | 1.130 | 0.174 | -0.009 | 0.484 | 1.401 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Roman, N.; Miclaus, R.; Repanovici, A.; Nicolau, C. Equal Opportunities for Stroke Survivors’ Rehabilitation: A Study on the Validity of the Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale Translated and Adapted into Romanian. Medicina 2020, 56, 409. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56080409
Roman N, Miclaus R, Repanovici A, Nicolau C. Equal Opportunities for Stroke Survivors’ Rehabilitation: A Study on the Validity of the Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale Translated and Adapted into Romanian. Medicina. 2020; 56(8):409. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56080409
Chicago/Turabian StyleRoman, Nadinne, Roxana Miclaus, Angela Repanovici, and Cristina Nicolau. 2020. "Equal Opportunities for Stroke Survivors’ Rehabilitation: A Study on the Validity of the Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale Translated and Adapted into Romanian" Medicina 56, no. 8: 409. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56080409