No abstract

This study aimed to examine the reliabilities (test–retest reliability and measurement error), construct validity, and the interpretability (minimal clinically important difference) of the Box and Block Test (BBT) to interpret test scores precisely for children with UCP. A total of 100 children with UCP were recruited and 50 children from the whole sample assessed the BBT twice within 2-week interval. The BBT, the Melbourne Assessment 2, the Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, 2nd Edition, and the Pediatric Motor Activity Log Revised were measured before and immediately after a 36-h intensive neurorehabilitation intervention. Measurement properties of the BBT were performed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. The test–retest reliability of the BBT was high (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.98). The measurement error estimated by the MDC95 value was 5.95. Construct validity was considered good that 4 of 4 (100%) hypotheses were confirmed. The interpretability estimated by the MCID ranged from 5.29 to 6.46. The BBT is a reliable and valid tool for children with UCP. For research and clinical applications, an improvement of seven blocks on the BBT is recommended as an indicator of statistically significant and clinically important change.

Importance: Children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy (CP) demonstrate spatial attention disregard, but the rehabilitation approach to CP is traditionally motor oriented. Objective: To explore spatial attention disregard in children with hemiplegic CP and its relationship to their motor performance in daily activities. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Community. Participants: Twenty-five children with hemiplegic CP and 25 age-matched typically developing children. Outcomes and Measures: For spatial attention performance, the Random Visual Stimuli Detection Task; for developmental disregard, the Observatory Test of Capacity, Performance, and Developmental Disregard; and for motor performance, the Melbourne Assessment 2. Results: Children with hemiplegic CP evidenced spatial attention disregard on their more affected sides, and this phenomenon was correlated with developmental disregard. Conclusions and Relevance: Children with hemiplegic CP demonstrate developmental disregard in both the motor and the visual–spatial attention domains. Including evaluation of and intervention for visual–spatial attention for children with hemiplegic CP in the traditionally motor-oriented rehabilitation approach is recommended. What This Article Adds: This research provides evidence that children with hemiplegic CP demonstrate disregard in the domain of visual–spatial attention. The findings suggest that evaluation of and intervention for visual–spatial attention should be included in CP rehabilitation in addition to the traditionally motor-oriented approach.

No abstract

Background Previous studies have compared the effectiveness of constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) by different training doses. However, whether the dosing schedule, that is, intensive or distributed, influences the effectiveness of CIMT in children with unilateral cerebral palsy (CP) is unknown. Objective To investigate the effectiveness of intensive and distributed CIMT for children with unilateral CP. Methods Fifty children with unilateral CP were assigned to intensive or distributed CIMT group with a total of 36 training hours. The intensive CIMT was delivered within 1 week, and the distributed CIMT was delivered twice a week for 8 weeks. The outcomes were the Melbourne Assessment 2, Box and Block Test, Pediatric Motor Activity Log-Revised (PMAL-R), Bruininks–Oseretsky test of motor proficiency 2, ABILHAND-Kids and Parenting Stress Index—Short Form. The intensive group was assessed at the initiation of treatment (week 0), at the end of 1 week treatment (week 1), and 8 weeks after the initiation of treatment (week 8). The distributed group was assessed at week 0 and week 8. Results The within-group analyses demonstrated significant differences on all motor outcomes. There were no significant between-group differences at post-treatment, while the intensive CIMT demonstrated larger improvements than the distributed CIMT did on quality of use of the more-affected hand, as rated by parents on the PMAL-R at week 8. Conclusions The 2 dosing schedules of CIMT had similar effectiveness for children with unilateral CP. The intensive CIMT yielded additional improvement on parent rated motor quality of the more-affected hand at 8 weeks after the initiation of treatment. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT03128385)