3.9 Article

Translating measurement findings into rehabilitation practice: An example using Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity with patients following stroke

期刊

出版社

JOURNAL REHAB RES & DEV
DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2010.10.0203

关键词

assessment; clinical goal setting; Fugl-Meyer Assessment; item response theory; measurement; occupational therapy; Rasch analysis; rehabilitation; stroke; upper limb

资金

  1. Department of Veterans Affairs
  2. Veterans Health Administration
  3. Office of Research and Development
  4. Rehabilitation Research and Development Service
  5. Career Development-2 Award [B6332W]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Standardized assessments are critical for advancing clinical rehabilitation, yet assessment scores often provide little information for rehabilitation treatment planning. A keyform recovery map is an innovative way for a therapist to record patient responses to standardized assessment items. The form enables a therapist to view the specific items that a patient can or cannot perform. This information can assist a therapist in tailoring treatments to a patient's individual ability level. We demonstrate how a keyform recovery map can be used to inform clinical treatment planning for individuals with stroke-related upper-limb motor impairment. A keyform map of poststroke upper-limb 'recovery defined by items of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) was generated by a previously published Rasch analysis. Three individuals with stroke enrolled in a separate research study were randomly selected from each of the three impairment strata of the FMAUE. Their performance on each item was displayed on the FMA-UE keyform. The forms directly connected qualitative descriptions of patients' motor ability to assessment measures, thereby suggesting appropriate shorter and longer term rehabilitation goals. This study demonstrates how measurement theory can be used to translate a standardized assessment into a useful, evidence-based tool for making clinical practice decisions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据