A pilot single-blind multicentre randomized controlled trial to evaluate the potential benefits of computer-assisted arm rehabilitation gaming technology on the arm function of children with spastic cerebral palsy

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potential benefits of computer-assisted arm rehabilitation gaming technology on arm function of children with spastic cerebral palsy. DESIGN: A single-blind randomized controlled trial design. Power calculations indicated that 58 children would be required to demonstrate a clinically important difference. SETTING: Intervention was home-based; recruitment took place in regional spasticity clinics. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 15 children with cerebral palsy aged five to 12 years were recruited; eight to the device group. INTERVENTIONS: Both study groups received 'usual follow-up treatment' following spasticity treatment with botulinum toxin; the intervention group also received a rehabilitation gaming device. MAIN MEASURES: ABILHAND-kids and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure were performed by blinded assessors at baseline, six and 12 weeks. RESULTS: An analysis of covariance showed no group differences in mean ABILHAND-kids scores between time points. A non-parametric analysis of variance on Canadian Occupational Performance Measure scores showed a statistically significant improvement across time points (χ(2) (2,15) = 6.778, p = 0.031), but this improvement did not reach minimal clinically important difference. Mean daily device use was seven minutes. Recruitment did not reach target owing to unanticipated staff shortages in clinical services. Feedback from children and their families indicated that the games were not sufficiently engaging to promote sufficient use that was likely to result in functional benefits. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that computer-assisted arm rehabilitation gaming does not benefit arm function, but a Type II error cannot be ruled out

A rasch analysis of the Manchester foot pain and disability index

© 2009 Muller and Roddy; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Theoretical framework and methodological development of common subjective health outcome measures in osteoarthritis: a critical review

Subjective measures involving clinician ratings or patient self-assessments have become recognised as an important tool for the assessment of health outcome. The value of a health outcome measure is usually assessed by a psychometric evaluation of its reliability, validity and responsiveness. However, psychometric testing involves an accumulation of evidence and has recognised limitations. It has been suggested that an evaluation of how well a measure has been developed would be a useful additional criteria in assessing the value of a measure. This paper explored the theoretical background and methodological development of subjective health status measures commonly used in osteoarthritis research. Fourteen subjective health outcome measures commonly used in osteoarthritis research were examined. Each measure was explored on the basis of their i) theoretical framework (was there a definition of what was being assessed and was it part of a theoretical model?) and ii) methodological development (what was the scaling strategy, how were the items generated and reduced, what was the response format and what was the scoring method?). Only the AIMS, SF-36 and WHOQOL defined what they were assessing (i.e. the construct of interest) and no measure assessed was part of a theoretical model. None of the clinician report measures appeared to have implemented a scaling procedure or described the rationale for the items selected or scoring system. Of the patient self-report measures, the AIMS, MPQ, OXFORD, SF-36, WHOQOL and WOMAC appeared to follow a standard psychometric scaling method. The DRP and EuroQol used alternative scaling methods. The review highlighted the general lack of theoretical framework for both clinician report and patient self-report measures. This review also drew attention to the wide variation in the methodological development of commonly used measures in OA. While, in general the patient self-report measures had good methodological development, the clinician report measures appeared less well developed. It would be of value if new measures defined the construct of interest and, that the construct, be part of theoretical model. By ensuring measures are both theoretically and empirically valid then improvements in subjective health outcome measures should be possible

Agreement, reliability and validity in 3 shoulder questionnaires in patients with rotator cuff disease

Background Self-report questionnaires play an important role as outcome measures in shoulder research. Having an estimate of the measurement error of these questionnaires is of importance when assessing follow-up results after treatment and when planning intervention studies. The aim of this study was to cross-culturally adapt the Norwegian version of the OSS and WORC questionnaire and examine and compare agreement, reliability and construct validity of the disease-specific shoulder questionnaire WORC with two commonly used shoulder questionnaires, SPADI and OSS, in patients with rotator cuff disease. Methods 74 patients with rotator cuff disease were recruited from the outpatient clinic of the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department at Ullevaal University Hospital in Oslo, Norway. A test-retest design was used, and the questionnaires were filled out by the patients at the clinic, with a one week interval between test administrations. Agreement (repeatability coefficient), reliability (ICC) and construct validity were examined and compared for WORC, SPADI and OSS. Results Reliability analysis was restricted to the 55 patients (51 ± 10 yrs) who reported no change between test administrations according to scoring on a global scale. The agreement, reliability and construct validity was moderate for all three questionnaires with ICC ranging from 0.83 to 0.85, repeatability coefficient from 16.1 to 19.7 and Spearman rank correlations between total scores from r = 0.57 to 0.69. There was a lower degree of floor and ceiling effects in SPADI compared to WORC and OSS. Conclusion We conclude that the agreement and reliability of the three shoulder questionnaires examined, WORC index, SPADI and OSS are acceptable and that differences between scores were small. The Norwegian version of the questionnaires is acceptable for assessing Norwegian-speaking patients with rotator cuff disease. The moderate agreement and construct validity should be taken into consideration when assessing follow-up results after treatment and in the planning of prospective studies