2019
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2019.1650963
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measurement properties of the Reaching Performance Scale for Stroke

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Prior to our study, a Brazilian-Portuguese version of the RPSS was developed, and the measurement properties of this version were reported. [22] The developers demonstrated excellent reliability and found that the internal consistency and validity with the FMA was strong; all of their findings were quite similar to ours.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Prior to our study, a Brazilian-Portuguese version of the RPSS was developed, and the measurement properties of this version were reported. [22] The developers demonstrated excellent reliability and found that the internal consistency and validity with the FMA was strong; all of their findings were quite similar to ours.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…Prior to our study, a Brazilian-Portuguese version of the RPSS was developed, and the measurement properties of this version were reported. [22] The developers demonstrated excellent reliability Table 3 The reliability of Korean version of reaching performance scale for stroke.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The task consisted of reaching for and grabbing a plastic cone that was placed on a table. This task was adopted from the Reaching Performance Scale (RPS) [9], which was developed to evaluate compensatory movements in the upper extremity during reaching and grasping tasks [9], [47], [48]. In RPS, the following six components are evaluated: trunk displacement, movement smoothness, shoulder movements, elbow movements, prehension, and global score.…”
Section: A Assessment Of Upper Extremity Functionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, Demers et al reviewed 15 upper extremity outcome measures assessing arm/hand function at the ICF’s activity level recommended by neurological clinical practice guidelines [ 7 ]. These include the Box and Block test [ 8 ], Jebsen Hand function test [ 9 ], Nine hole peg test [ 10 ], ARAT [ 5 ], Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory (CAHAI) [ 11 ], Arm Motor ability test [ 12 ], Frenchay Arm Test [ 13 ], Motor Evaluation Scale for Upper Extremity in Stroke Patients [ 14 ], Reaching Performance Scale for Stroke [ 15 ], Test d’Évaluation des Membres supérieurs des Personnes Âgées [ 16 ], Wolf Motor Function Test [ 17 ], ABILHAND [ 18 ], Capabilities of the upper extremity [ 19 ] and Motor-Activity Log [ 7 ]. The review concluded that current activity measures may not distinguish recovery from compensation and do not adequately track changes in movement quality over time.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%