ArticlePloS one2026
Reliability and validity of a newly developed Action Research Arm Test for upper limb function assessment in patients with stroke: A comparison with the conventional version.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Use of 3D Printing Technology in Rehabilitation for Adults Living With Neurological Conditions: Scoping Review.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFollowing the discontinuation of the conventional Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) import in Japan, a domestically manufactured version with identical assessment protocols but modified equipment was developed. We aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the newly developed ARAT and compare it with the conventional ARAT in patients with stroke.
methodsThis single-center cross-sectional study enrolled 64 patients with stroke and hemiparesis who met predefined inclusion criteria. Participants were randomly allocated to a reliability validation (n = 33) or criterion validity validation (n = 31) group. The reliability group underwent duplicate assessments with the new ARAT at 15-min intervals, with video recording for independent inter-rater evaluation. The validity group received the new and conventional ARAT assessments in randomized order. Convergent validity was assessed using Spearman correlation coefficients with Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), Box and Block Test (BBT), grip strength, Motor Activity Log (MAL), and Jikei Assessment Scale for Motor Impairment in Daily Living (JASMID).
resultsIntra-rater reliability demonstrated excellent agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]: 0.997-1.000, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.995-1.000) across all subscales and total scores. Inter-rater reliability showed equally excellent agreement (ICC: 0.979-0.999, 95% CI: 0.963-0.999). Bland-Altman analysis revealed limits of agreement within clinically acceptable ranges for all measures. The new ARAT demonstrated very strong convergent validity with FMA-UE (ρ = 0.934, p < 0.001) and BBT (ρ = 0.917, p < 0.001), and moderate-to-strong correlations with grip strength (ρ = 0.683, p < 0.001), MAL subscales (ρ = 0.610-0.666, p < 0.001), and JASMID subscales (ρ = 0.806-0.808, p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe new ARAT demonstrates measurement properties equivalent to the conventional version with excellent reliability and strong criterion-related validity. Its robust convergent validity with established upper limb assessments supports its clinical utility for comprehensive stroke rehabilitation evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.