4.3 Article

Manual Ability Classification System (MACS): reliability between therapists and parents in Brazil

期刊

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL THERAPY
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 26-33

出版社

ASSOCIACAO BRASILEIRA PESQUISA POS-GRADUACAO FISIOTERAPIA-ABRAPG-FT
DOI: 10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0065

关键词

cerebral palsy; MACS; reproducibility of results; rehabilitation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) has been widely used to describe the manual ability of children with cerebral palsy (CP); however its reliability has not been verified in Brazil. Objective: To establish the inter- and intra-rater reliability of the Portuguese-Brazil version of the MACS by comparing the classifications given by therapists and parents of children with CP. Method: Data were obtained from 90 children with CP between the ages of 4 and 18 years, who were treated at the neurology and rehabilitation clinics of a Brazilian hospital. Therapists (an occupational therapist and a student) classified manual ability (MACS) through direct observation and information provided by parents. Therapists and parents used the Portuguese-Brazil version of the MACS. Intra- and inter-rater reliability was obtained using unweighted Kappa coefficient (k) and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). The Chi-square test was used to identify the predominance of disagreements in the classification of parents and therapists. Results: An almost perfect agreement resulted among therapists [K=0.90 (95% CI 0.83-0.97); ICC=0.97 (95% CI 0.96-0.98)], as well as with intra-rater (therapists), with Kappa ranging between 0.83 and 0.95 and ICC between 0.96 and 0.99 for the evaluator with more and less experience in rehabilitation, respectively. The agreement between therapists and parents was fair [K=0.36 (95% CI 0.22-0.50); ICC=0.79 (95% CI 0.70-0.86)]. Conclusions: The Portuguese version of the MACS is a reliable instrument to be used jointly by parents and therapists.

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

4.3
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