4.0 Article

Proposing a new short screening test for upper limb apraxia

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY
卷 85, 期 1, 页码 44-49

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0308022621998564

关键词

Apraxia; gesture; pantomime; screening test; stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study developed a short assessment test for upper limb apraxia in stroke patients, which includes 10 items and can be completed in a short time. The test showed high reliability and validity in evaluating apraxia, making it a useful tool for assessing stroke patients from acute to chronic phases.
Background Apraxia has a major impact on activities of daily living in stroke patients. The proper assessment and treatment of apraxia is important for maintaining a good quality of life. We developed a short evaluation test for upper limb apraxia. Patients and Methods The present Screening Test of Gestures for Stroke consists of 10 items for each verbal instruction and imitation. Each item includes three meaningless gestures, three meaningful gestures and four pantomimes. The Screening Test of Gestures for Stroke is scored based on a 3-point system: 10, 5 or 0 (maximum score: 200). The test took approximately 2-5 min to complete. We recruited 65 patients admitted to our hospital with left hemisphere stroke and 50 healthy subjects. Results The reliability of the Screening Test of Gestures for Stroke was as follows: the intraclass correlation coefficient of intra-rater reliability was 0.93 for both verbal instructions and imitations, and the intraclass correlation coefficient total scores for inter-rater reliability for verbal instructions and for imitations were 0.97 and 0.95, respectively. The alpha coefficient was >= 0.80. Conclusions The Screening Test of Gestures for Stroke is a reliable and valid bedside test that has a short assessment time, does not require special equipment and can evaluate upper limb apraxia in stroke patients from the acute to the chronic phase.

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

4.0
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