4.1 Article

Inter-rater reliability of the Australian Spasticity Assessment Scale in poststroke spasticity

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000516

Keywords

Australian Spasticity Assessment Scale; muscle spasticity; stroke

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the inter-rater reliability of the Australian Spasticity Assessment Scale (ASAS) in adult stroke patients with spasticity. The results showed that the inter-rater reliability of the ASAS differed depending on the spastic muscle group assessed and the statistical method used. Weighted kappa values indicated good to very good agreement for the ASAS in assessing muscle spasticity.
To investigate the inter-rater reliability of the Australian Spasticity Assessment Scale (ASAS) in adult stroke patients with spasticity, two experienced clinicians rated the elbow flexor, wrist flexor, and ankle plantar flexor spasticity by using the ASAS in 85 persons with stroke. Unweighted and weighted (linear and quadratic) kappa statistics were used to calculate the inter-rater reliability for each muscle group. Unweighted kappa coefficients for elbow flexors (n = 83), wrist flexors (n = 80), and ankle plantar flexors (n = 77) were 0.67, 0.60, and 0.55, respectively. Linear and quadratic weighted kappa coefficients, respectively, were 0.77 and 0.87 for elbow flexors, 0.72 and 0.82 for wrist flexors, and 0.72 and 0.85 for ankle plantar flexors. The raters never disagreed by more than a single score in the rating of elbow flexors. On the contrary, the raters disagreed by more than a single score in three patients in the rating of ankle plantar flexors and in one patient in the rating of wrist flexors. The results suggested that inter-rater reliability of the ASAS differed according to the spastic muscle group assessed and the statistical method used. The strength of the agreement on the ASAS, an ordinal scale, ranged from good to very good when the weighted kappa values were considered.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available