Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25323459›Full record

ArticleNeurorehabilitation and neural repair2015

Interrater reliability of the Wolf Motor Function Test-Functional Ability Scale: why it matters.

Susan V Duff, Jiaxiu He, Monica A Nelsen, Christianne J Lane, Veronica T Rowe, Steve L Wolf, Alexander W Dromerick, Carolee J Winstein

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurorehabilitation and neural repair, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00871715 (Interdisciplinary Comprehensive Arm Rehab Evaluation), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT00871715 nacompletednot on this map

Interdisciplinary Comprehensive Arm Rehab Evaluation (ICARE) Stroke Initiative

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Southern CaliforniaRan2009 to 2014Enrolled361ConditionsStroke, Brain Infarction, Brain Ischemia, Cerebral InfarctionArmsAccelerated Skill Acquisition Program (ASAP), Dose-Equivalent Usual & Customary Care - DEUCC, Usual and Customary Care - UCC
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A Reaching Performance Scale for 2 Wolf Motor Function Test Items.Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Susan V DuffThomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jiaxiu HeNorthwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Monica A NelsenUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Christianne J LaneUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Veronica T RoweUniversity of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR, USA Texas Woman's University, Dallas, TX, USA.
Steve L WolfEmory School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Alexander W DromerickGeorgetown University and MedStar National Rehabilitation Hospital, Washington, DC, USA.
Carolee J WinsteinUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA winstein@usc.edu.

Funding

Interdisciplinary Comprehensive Arm Rehab Evaluation (I-CARE) Stroke InitiativeU01NS056256 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI DROMERICK, ALEXANDER W, WINSTEIN, CAROLEE J · 2008 to 2013
$12.7M
TREET: Training in Rehabilitation Efficacy and Effectiveness TrialsT32HD064578 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI CLARK, FLORENCE A. · 2011 to 2015
$1.1M
NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD064578NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS056256
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne important objective for clinical trialists in rehabilitation is determining efficacy of interventions to enhance motor behavior. In part, limitation in the precision of measurement presents a challenge. The few valid, low-cost observational tools available to assess motor behavior cannot escape the variability inherent in test administration and scoring. This is especially true when there are multiple evaluators and raters, as in the case of multisite randomized controlled trials (RCTs). One way to enhance reliability and reduce variability is to implement rigorous quality control (QC) procedures.

objectiveThis article describes a systematic QC process used to refine the administration and scoring procedures for the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT)-Functional Ability Scale (FAS).

methodsThe QC process, a systematic focus-group collaboration, was developed and used for a phase III RCT, which enlisted multiple evaluators and an experienced WMFT-FAS rater panel.

resultsAfter 3 staged refinements to the administration and scoring instructions, we achieved a sufficiently high interrater reliability (weighted κ = 0.8). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: A systematic focus-group process was shown to be an effective method to improve reliability of observational assessment tools for motor behavior in neurorehabilitation. A reduction in noise-related variability in performance assessments will increase power and potentially lower the number needed to treat. Improved precision of measurement can lead to more cost-effective and efficient clinical trials. Finally, we suggest that improved precision in measures of motor behavior may provide more insight into recovery mechanisms than a single measure of movement time alone.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationReproducibility of ResultsArmClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicElectronic Data ProcessingHumansMotor ActivityMulticenter Studies as TopicQuality ControlRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStroke RehabilitationTime Factorsassessmentimpairmentmotor controlobservationalqualitystroke

Identifiers

PMID25323459
PMCPMC4400190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.