4.6 Article

Inter- and intrarater reliability of the Ashworth Scale and the Disability Assessment Scale in patients with upper-limb poststroke spasticity

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Volume 83, Issue 10, Pages 1349-1354

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO
DOI: 10.1053/apmr.2002.35474

Keywords

cerebrovascular accident; muscle spasticity; outcome assessment (health care); rehabilitation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate the reliability of the Ashworth Scale and the Disability Assessment Scale (DAS) in poststroke patients with upper-limb spasticity and functional disability. Design: Single-center trial. Setting: University medical center. Participants: Nine patients greater than or equal to6 months poststroke with upper-limb spasticity and impairment in the areas of hygiene, dressing, limb posture, or pain were included in the analysis. Interventions: Ten experienced medical professionals rated each patient in randomized order twice on the same day (results based on mean of evaluations at times 1 and 2). Elbow, wrist, finger, and thumb flexion tones were assessed by using the Ashworth score (range, 0-4), and functional disability was assessed using the DAS (range, 0-3). Main Outcome Measures: Intra- and interrater reliability of the Ashworth Scale and DAS. Results: For the Ashworth parameters, 38 of 40 evaluations indicated excellent (weighted kappagreater than or equal to.75) or good (weighted kappagreater than or equal to.4) intrarater reliability. For DAS parameters, 31 of 40 evaluations indicated excellent or good intrarater reliability. The interrater reliability was also good for both the Ashworth Scale (Kendall W=.598-.792) and DAS (Kendall W=.494-.772) with statistically significant agreement found among raters (all P<.001). Conclusions: In patients with upper-limb spasticity after stroke, the Ashworth Scale and DAS had good intra- and interrater reliability when used by trained medical professions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available