We have located links that may give you full text access.
Parallel-forms Reliability and Minimal Detectable Change of the Four Telerehabilitation Version Mobility-related Function Scales in Stroke Survivors.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2024 January 32
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the parallel-forms reliability, minimal detectable change (MDC95 ), and feasibility of the four telerehabilitation version mobility-related function scales: Fugl-Meyer Assessment-lower extremity subscale (Tele-FMA-LE), Berg Balance Scale (Tele-BBS), Tinetti Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment-Gait subscale (Tele-POMA-G), and Rivermead Mobility Index (Tele-RMI).
DESIGN: Reliability and agreement study and cross-sectional study.
SETTING: Medical center.
PARTICIPANTS: Stroke survivors' ability to independently walk 3 meters with assistive devices, age of ≥18 for participants and their partners, stable physical condition, and absence of cognitive impairment.
INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable.
MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Parallel-forms reliability and MDC95 of Tele-FMA-LE, Tele-BBS, Tele-POMA-G, and Tele-RMI.
RESULTS: No significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed among the mean scores of the telerehabilitation version and face-to-face version mobility-related function scales. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) indicated good reliability for most scales, with Tele-FMA-LE, Tele-BBS, and Tele-RMI scores achieving values of 0.81, 0.78, and 0.84. Tele-POMA-G scores demonstrated moderate reliability (ICC = 0.72). Weighted kappa (κw) showed good to excellent reliability for most individual items (κw > 0.60). The MDC of the Tele-FMA-LE, Tele-BBS, Tele-POMA-G, and Tele-RMI were 5.84, 8.10, 2.74, and 1.31, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis showed adequate agreement between tele-assessment and face-to-face assessment for all scales. The five dimensions affirm the robust feasibility of tele-assessment: assessment time, subjective fatigue perception, overall preference, participant satisfaction, and system usability.
CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates good parallel-forms reliability, minimal detectable change, and promising feasibility of the four telerehabilitation version mobility-related function scales (Tele-FMA-LE, Tele-BBS, Tele-POMA-G, and Tele-RMI) in stroke survivors.
DESIGN: Reliability and agreement study and cross-sectional study.
SETTING: Medical center.
PARTICIPANTS: Stroke survivors' ability to independently walk 3 meters with assistive devices, age of ≥18 for participants and their partners, stable physical condition, and absence of cognitive impairment.
INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable.
MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Parallel-forms reliability and MDC95 of Tele-FMA-LE, Tele-BBS, Tele-POMA-G, and Tele-RMI.
RESULTS: No significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed among the mean scores of the telerehabilitation version and face-to-face version mobility-related function scales. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) indicated good reliability for most scales, with Tele-FMA-LE, Tele-BBS, and Tele-RMI scores achieving values of 0.81, 0.78, and 0.84. Tele-POMA-G scores demonstrated moderate reliability (ICC = 0.72). Weighted kappa (κw) showed good to excellent reliability for most individual items (κw > 0.60). The MDC of the Tele-FMA-LE, Tele-BBS, Tele-POMA-G, and Tele-RMI were 5.84, 8.10, 2.74, and 1.31, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis showed adequate agreement between tele-assessment and face-to-face assessment for all scales. The five dimensions affirm the robust feasibility of tele-assessment: assessment time, subjective fatigue perception, overall preference, participant satisfaction, and system usability.
CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates good parallel-forms reliability, minimal detectable change, and promising feasibility of the four telerehabilitation version mobility-related function scales (Tele-FMA-LE, Tele-BBS, Tele-POMA-G, and Tele-RMI) in stroke survivors.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app