4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Dimensionality and construct validity of the fugl-meyer assessment of the upper extremity

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.02.036

关键词

rehabilitation; research design; stroke

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [5P60AG14635] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [T32HD043730] Funding Source: Medline
  3. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [T32HD043730] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [P60AG014635] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the dimensionality and construct Validity of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the upper extremity by using Rasch analysis. Design: Secondary analysis of pooled data from 2 existing datasets: a randomized therapeutic exercise clinical trial and a cohort longitudinal study of stroke recovery. Setting: University research center. Participants: A total of 5 12 subjects, ages 69.8 +/- 11.1 years, who were 0 to 145 days poststroke. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Dimensionality was examined with principal components analysis and Rasch item-fit statistics. The Rasch-derived item hierarchy was examined for consistency With the expected course of poststroke upper-extremity recovery suggested by the reflex-hierarchical conceptual model underlying the assessment. Results: Factor loadings and item infit statistics suggested that the 3 reflex items were empirically disconnected from other assessment items. The reflex items were removed. The modified 30-item assessment showed a unidimensional structure. The Rasch-item-difficulty order was not consistent with the expected item order. Conclusions: The items testing resting-state reflexes may flu-eaten the assessment's dimensionality. With reflex items removed, the assessment is a unidimensional measure of volitional movement. The Rasch-generated item-difficulty order challenges the hierarchical structure implied by the instrument's underlying conceptual framework.

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