Psychometric properties of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills in patients undergoing rehabilitation following hand-related disorders

IF 0.9 Q4 REHABILITATION Hand Therapy Pub Date : 2020-03-24 DOI:10.1177/1758998320912761
Thea Birch Ransby, A. Ø. Hansen, N. Rolving
{"title":"Psychometric properties of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills in patients undergoing rehabilitation following hand-related disorders","authors":"Thea Birch Ransby, A. Ø. Hansen, N. Rolving","doi":"10.1177/1758998320912761","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) has been proven to be a suitable measurement tool for assessing performance-based ADL ability; however, its reliability and validity have not been tested on patients with hand-related disorders. Methods Patients referred for outpatient hand rehabilitation were assessed with AMPS, The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), dynamometer and goniometer at baseline and after eight weeks of hand therapy. Construct validity and responsiveness of AMPS were assessed by hypothesis testing. Construct validity was assessed by correlating the baseline score of AMPS with the baseline score of the other measurement tools. Responsiveness was assessed by correlating the change scores of each measurement tool with a Global Rating Scale. Results Fifty-one patients were recruited. The construct validity of AMPS indicated that the various measurement tools captured different aspects to functioning from the AMPS, as the correlations between AMPS and the other measurement tools were generally weak to low (r < 0.25 to 0.49). AMPS was less responsive than COPM when correlated with the GRS. The correlation between COPM and GRS was r = 0.62 compared with the AMPS motor, r = 0.45 and AMPS process, r = 0.33. Relative responsiveness of AMPS is similar to that of the dynamometer (r = 0.39) and goniometer (r = –0.34). Discussion In a sample of 51 patients, this study found that the construct validity of AMPS seemed to be moderate, while the responsiveness of AMPS seemed to be poor. However, due to the small sample size no conclusions can be made, and should be further assessed in larger studies.","PeriodicalId":43971,"journal":{"name":"Hand Therapy","volume":"218 1","pages":"63 - 72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hand Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1758998320912761","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) has been proven to be a suitable measurement tool for assessing performance-based ADL ability; however, its reliability and validity have not been tested on patients with hand-related disorders. Methods Patients referred for outpatient hand rehabilitation were assessed with AMPS, The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), dynamometer and goniometer at baseline and after eight weeks of hand therapy. Construct validity and responsiveness of AMPS were assessed by hypothesis testing. Construct validity was assessed by correlating the baseline score of AMPS with the baseline score of the other measurement tools. Responsiveness was assessed by correlating the change scores of each measurement tool with a Global Rating Scale. Results Fifty-one patients were recruited. The construct validity of AMPS indicated that the various measurement tools captured different aspects to functioning from the AMPS, as the correlations between AMPS and the other measurement tools were generally weak to low (r < 0.25 to 0.49). AMPS was less responsive than COPM when correlated with the GRS. The correlation between COPM and GRS was r = 0.62 compared with the AMPS motor, r = 0.45 and AMPS process, r = 0.33. Relative responsiveness of AMPS is similar to that of the dynamometer (r = 0.39) and goniometer (r = –0.34). Discussion In a sample of 51 patients, this study found that the construct validity of AMPS seemed to be moderate, while the responsiveness of AMPS seemed to be poor. However, due to the small sample size no conclusions can be made, and should be further assessed in larger studies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
手相关障碍康复患者运动和加工技能评估的心理测量学特征
运动和过程技能评估(AMPS)已被证明是评估基于性能的ADL能力的合适测量工具;然而,其信度和效度尚未在手相关疾病患者中进行测试。方法采用AMPS、加拿大职业绩效量表(COPM)、测功仪和测角仪对门诊手部康复患者进行基线和8周手部治疗后的评估。采用假设检验对AMPS的结构效度和反应性进行评估。通过将AMPS的基线得分与其他测量工具的基线得分相关联来评估结构效度。通过将每个测量工具的变化分数与全球评级量表相关联来评估响应性。结果共纳入51例患者。AMPS的结构效度表明,不同的测量工具捕获了不同方面的AMPS功能,因为AMPS与其他测量工具之间的相关性普遍较弱至较低(r < 0.25至0.49)。当与GRS相关时,AMPS的反应性低于COPM。COPM与GRS的相关r = 0.62,而AMPS电机的相关r = 0.45, AMPS过程的相关r = 0.33。AMPS的相对响应性与测功仪(r = 0.39)和测角仪(r = -0.34)相似。在51例患者的样本中,本研究发现AMPS的结构效度似乎中等,而AMPS的反应性似乎较差。然而,由于样本量小,无法得出结论,应在更大规模的研究中进一步评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Hand Therapy
Hand Therapy REHABILITATION-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
A survey of practice on the use of condition-specific patient reported outcome measures with patients who have distal radius fractures. The effect of preoperative interventions on postoperative outcomes following elective hand surgery: A systematic review. Exploring patient perception of decision-making in carpal tunnel release surgery: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Rehabilitation of stage-one scapholunate instability (ReSOS): An online survey of UK practice. Production time and practicability of 3D-Printed wrist orthoses versus low temperature thermoplastic wrist orthoses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1