Comparing 2 versions of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory with the Action Research Arm Test
Comparing 2 versions of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory with the Action Research Arm Test
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/ptj/86.2.245
复制
发表时间：
2006-02-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Griffiths, J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barreca, SR;Stratford, PW;Griffiths, J
背景和目的。Chedoke手臂和手活动问卷(CAFLAI)是一种新的、经过验证的上肢测量方法，它使用7分量化量表来评估中风后手臂和手的功能恢复。本研究的目的是：(1)确定新的上肢测量工具CARAI(CAHAI-9和CAHAI-13)的两个版本的分数的纵向效度是否高于行动研究手臂测验(ARAT)的分数；(2)确定CAHAI-13的横断面和纵向效度是否高于CAHAI-9的分数。受试者。105例中风后上肢功能障碍患者被分成两组(轻度、中度和重度)，预计会有不同程度的变化。方法：研究方法。CAHAI-13和ARAT接受了两次治疗(评估间隔时间从2周到6周不等)。采用受试者工作特征曲线、皮尔逊乘积矩相关系数和回归分析。结果。CAHAI版本的受试者工作特征曲线面积(CAHAI-13=0.86，CAHAI-9=0.82，ARAT=0.72)显著增大。两个CAHAI版本的分数具有相同的横断面效度水平。讨论和结论。两个CAHAI版本都表现出比ARAT更敏感的变化。目前尚不清楚CAHAI-9是否提供了个人层面上对CAHAI-13分数的准确估计。
Background and Purpose. The Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory (CAFLAI) is a new, validated upper-limb measure that uses a 7-point quantitative scale in order to assess functional recovery of the arm and hand after a stroke. The purposes of this study were: (1) to determine whether the longitudinal validity of scores on 2 versions of a new upper-limb measure, the CARAI (CAHAI-9 and CAHAI-13), was greater than that of scores on the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and (2) to determine whether the cross-sectional and longitudinal validity of the CAHAI-13 scores was greater than that of the CAHAI-9 scores. Subjects. One hundred five people with upper-limb dysfunction following a stroke were stratified into 2 impairment groups (mild to moderate and severe), which were expected to change by different amounts. Methods. The CAHAI-13 and ARAT were administered twice (time between assessments varied from 2 to 6 weeks). Receiver operating characteristic curves, Pearson product moment coefficient of correlation, and regression analyses were used. Results. Receiver operating characteristic curve areas (CAHAI-13=0.86, CAHAI-9=0.82, ARAT=0.72) were significantly greater for the CAHAI versions. Scores on both CAHAI versions had identical levels of cross-sectional validity. Discussion and Conclusion. Both CAHAI versions demonstrated more sensitivity to change than the ARAT. It remains unclear whether the CAHAI-9 provides precise estimates of CAHAI-13 scores at the individual level.