Measurement properties of the Motor Evaluation Scale for Upper Extremity in Stroke patients (MESUPES)

Johansson, Gustav; Häger, Charlotte

doi:10.3109/09638288.2011.606343

Cited by 23 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…16 For this study, 80% and 90% CIs were chosen reflecting two different (albeit relatively low) degrees of risk of misinterpretation of change scores. 16,19 Discriminant validity analyses assessed whether the QFM could detect hypothesized movement quality differences across GMFCS levels (i.e. lower quality of movement scores for all attributes in association with greater gait impairments).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Quality Function Measure: reliability and discriminant validity of a new measure of quality of gross motor movement in ambulatory children with cerebral palsy

Wright

Rosenbaum

Mesterman

et al. 2014

Develop Med Child Neuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

GMPMGross Impaired gross motor development and function are defining features of cerebral palsy (CP). 1 Interventions aim to optimize what the child can do (functional skills) and how they do it (movement quality).2 Both are important prerequisites for advanced motor skills related to activity and participation. Enhancement of quality of movement may be an important precursor to attainment of new gross motor skills.2 While function is the ultimate goal, identifying challenges in quality of movement helps to guide therapists to develop individualized therapy approaches to enhance function. Without measuring movement, quality changes can only be inferred from improvements in other aspects of function, such as timed walk tests, acquisition of new motor skills, or indications of greater functional skill independence. Clinicians and researchers, therefore, remain uncertain about what aspects of quality are changing and when, how, and why. 'No difference' findings in trials that failed to assess quality of movement may have missed important changes in this underlying component of motor skill.Instrumented systems quantify selected attributes of movement quality (e.g. force, amplitude, speed), but their use is limited to specialized centres. Paediatric physiotherapists typically rate quality of performance through clinical observation and Gestalt perceptions of movement.3,4 The absence of appropriate clinical instruments to evaluate movement quality was the impetus to the development of the Gross Motor Performance Measure (GMPM), 3 created through an expert consensus approach as a companion to the original Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-88). 5The GMPM was designed to quantify key aspects of movement quality and evaluate change in children with CP and acquired brain injury. 6 Five attributes (Alignment, and it detected change with interventions (orthopaedic surgery, rhizotomy, and ankle orthoses). 11,12The GMPM remains the only published measure that addresses multiple components of quality of gross motor skills for children with CP. Other published upper or lower extremity/total body quality of movement scales are outlined in Table SI (online supporting information). Three concerns about the GMPM are its lack of item-specific response option descriptions, the need for highly experienced raters, 8 and the small representation of motor skills (20 GMFM-88 items). While the GMPM may be suitable for a therapist who is working with a child on basic motor skills that have quality components to them (e.g. Co-ordination and Dissociated movement are relevant attributes to assess for lying/rolling and crawling skills), its evaluation of movement quality across all aspects of motor function does not align well with goals of children who are working specifically on ambulation-based skills. For these children in Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels I to III, evaluation of movement quality should be intensely focused on standing and walking skills with a sufficient number of items to give a complete picture of...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Quality Function Measure: reliability and discriminant validity of a new measure of quality of gross motor movement in ambulatory children with cerebral palsy

Wright

Rosenbaum

Mesterman

et al. 2014

Develop Med Child Neuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The minimal detectable change (MDC) for the total score with 95% confidence level was calculated and resulted in a score difference of 8 to be necessary for a genuine change of function when assessed by different raters. However, the MDC obtained intra-rater was expected to be lower17 ) .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The primary outcome was the Motor Evaluation Scale for Upper Extremity in Stroke Patients (MESUPES) score to assess UE functionality. It is the only validated scale for evaluating quality of motion8, 17 ) . It consists of two parts: MESUPES-arm and MESUPES-hand.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Each item is scored from 0 (inability to adapt muscle tone to the movement) to 5 (ability to correct and complete motion without help). MESUPES-hand consists of 9 wrist and finger items scored on a 3-pointed rating scale: No movement or incorrect=0; Movement incomplete=1; Movement complete=28, 17 ) . The minimal detectable change (MDC) for the total score with 95% confidence level was calculated and resulted in a score difference of 8 to be necessary for a genuine change of function when assessed by different raters.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A neurocognitive approach for recovering upper extremity movement following subacute stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[Purpose] This study aims to describe a protocol based on neurocognitive therapeutic exercises and determine its feasibility and usefulness for upper extremity functionality when compared with a conventional protocol. [Subjects and Methods] Eight subacute stroke patients were randomly assigned to a conventional (control group) or neurocognitive (experimental group) treatment protocol. Both lasted 30 minutes, 3 times a week for 10 weeks and assessments were blinded. Outcome measures included: Motor Evaluation Scale for Upper Extremity in Stroke Patients, Motricity Index, Revised Nottingham Sensory Assessment and Kinesthetic and Visual Imagery Questionnaire. Descriptive measures and nonparametric statistical tests were used for analysis. [Results] The results indicate a more favorable clinical progression in the neurocognitive group regarding upper extremity functional capacity with achievement of the minimal detectable change. The functionality results are related with improvements on muscle strength and sensory discrimination (tactile and kinesthetic). [Conclusion] Despite not showing significant group differences between pre and post-treatment, the neurocognitive approach could be a safe and useful strategy for recovering upper extremity movement following stroke, especially regarding affected hands, with better and longer lasting results. Although this work shows this protocol’s feasibility with the panel of scales proposed, larger studies are required to demonstrate its effectiveness.

show abstract

“…For many diseases, there is no agreed-upon well-defined and reliable method for evaluating a particular disease manifestation of interest, and in some diseases not for any important manifestation [1–11]. In other diseases, current outcome evaluation methods have known weaknesses, such as: poor reliability, limited ability to detect change, inadequate interpretability of changes [12–15] or uncertain validity [16–18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Outcome Assessments: Conceptual Foundation—Report of the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment – Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An outcome assessment, the patient assessment used in an endpoint, is the measuring instrument that provides a rating or score (categorical or continuous) that is intended to represent some aspect of the patient’s health status. Outcome assessments are used to define efficacy endpoints when developing a therapy for a disease or condition. Most efficacy endpoints are based on specified clinical assessments of patients. When clinical assessments are used as clinical trial outcomes, they are called clinical outcome assessments (COAs). COAs include any assessment that may be influenced by human choices, judgment, or motivation, COAs must be well-defined and possess adequate measurement properties in order to demonstrate (directly or indirectly) the benefits of a treatment. In contrast, a biomarker assessment is one that is subject to little, if any, patient motivational or rater judgmental influence. This is the first of two reports by the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment – Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force. This report provides foundational definitions important for an understanding of COA measurement principles. The foundation provided in this report includes what it means to demonstrate a beneficial effect, how assessments of patients relate to the objective of showing a treatment’s benefit, and how these assessments are used in clinical trial endpoints. In addition, this report describes intrinsic attributes of patient assessments and clinical trial factors that can affect the properties of the measurements. These factors should be considered when developing or refining assessments. These considerations will aid investigators designing trials in their choice of using an existing assessment or developing a new outcome assessment. Although the focus of this report is in the development of a new COA to define endpoints in a clinical trial, these principles may be applied more generally. A critical element in appraising or developing a COA is to describe the treatment’s intended benefit as an effect on a clearly identified aspect of how a patient feels or functions. This aspect must have importance to the patient and be part of their typical life. This meaningful health aspect can be measured directly or measured indirectly when it is impractical to evaluate it directly or difficult to measure. For indirect measurement, a concept of interest (COI) can be identified. The COI must be related to how a patient feels or functions. Procedures are then developed to measure the concept of interest. The relationship of these measurements to how a patient feels or functions in the intended setting and manner of use of the COA (the context of use) could then be defined. A COA has identifiable attributes or characteristics that affect the measurement properties of the COA when used in endpoints. One of these features is whether judgment can influence the measurement, and if so, whose judgment. This attribute defines four categories of COAs: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), clinician-reported outcomes (...

show abstract

Measurement properties of the Motor Evaluation Scale for Upper Extremity in Stroke patients (MESUPES)

Cited by 23 publications

References 32 publications

The Quality Function Measure: reliability and discriminant validity of a new measure of quality of gross motor movement in ambulatory children with cerebral palsy

The Quality Function Measure: reliability and discriminant validity of a new measure of quality of gross motor movement in ambulatory children with cerebral palsy

A neurocognitive approach for recovering upper extremity movement following subacute stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study

Clinical Outcome Assessments: Conceptual Foundation—Report of the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment – Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About