4.6 Article

Smallest Real Difference of 2 Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Measures in Patients With Chronic Stroke

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.01.015

关键词

Activities of daily living; Bias (Epidemiology); Cerebrovascular accident; Rehabilitation; Reproducibility of results

资金

  1. National Health Research Institute in Taiwan [NHRI-EX99-9512PI]
  2. E-Da Hospital [97-EDN11]
  3. College of Medicine, National Taiwan University [98HM00021]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lu W-S, Chen CC, Huang S-L, Hsieh C-L. Smallest real difference of 2 instrumental activities of daily living measures in patients with chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012;93:1097-1100. Objective: To estimate the smallest real difference (SRD) values of 2 instrumental activities of daily living measures (the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living [NEADL] and the Frenchay Activities Index [EAU]) in patients with chronic stroke. Design: Test-retest reliability study. Setting: Physical rehabilitation units of 5 hospitals. Participants: Chronic stroke patients (N=52; 37 men, 15 women) who were discharged from the hospital for more than 6 months. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Both measures were administered twice about 2 weeks apart to participants. The SRD was calculated on the basis of standard error of measurement: SRD = 1.96 X root 2 x Standard error of measurement. SRD% (the value of SRD divided by total score of a measure) was used to compare measurement errors across both measures. Reproducibility between successive measurements of the measures was investigated with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Results: The SRD (SRD%) values of the NEADL and the FAI were 12.0 (21.1%) and 6.7 (14.9%), respectively. Test-retest reproducibility of both measures was high (ICC: NEADL=.89, FAI=.89). Conclusions: Because of substantial SRD values of the NEADL and the FAT, prospective users should be cautious in using both measures to detect real change for a single subject.

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

4.6
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