Quels sont les items de la Classification internationale du fonctionnement (CIF) couverts par le bilan 400 points ? Consensus entre deux équipes de thérapeutes

Konzelmann, M.; Gable, C.; Ángel, Sara Claudia París; Balandras, S.; Fortel, Y.; Gauzelin, M.-P.; Gusse, Isabelle; Monereau, C.; Coutant, M.-E. Mulot; Sanamane, V.; Echenard, V.; Tomson, O.; Pelfini, Manuela; Burrus, Cyrille; Paysant, Jean

doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2012.07.735

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the comprehensiveness of the items (D4), we think that all the relevant aspects of the construct were covered by the items and the domains. As is said in the introduction, ICF domains of body functions and structure, activities and participation were covered by the 400-point HA [30]. The conceptual basis of the 400-point HA was to appreciate global hand functional capacity and to target parameters that are responsible of the global deficit.…”

Section: Internal Consistencymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It's a quantitative and evaluative test used in pathologies of the musculoskeletal system in adults. It covers the first part of the ICF well, with 1 item for body structures,12 items for body functions and 21 items for activities and participation [30]. There are four tests, each based on 100 points: function of the hand (mobility with 12 movements), strength (five dynamometers), handling and displacement of objects (20 objects), and function with both hands (20 tasks of daily living).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prospective multicentre validation study of a new standardised version of the 400-point hand assessment

Konzelmann

Burrus

Gable

et al. 2020

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Hand rehabilitation needs valid evaluation tools; the 400-point Hand Assessment (HA) is an exhaustive but not standardised tool. The aim of this study was to validate a standardised version of this test. Methods: A modified version and a standardised prototype was made for this prospective validation study (four centres, three countries). Psychometric properties studied: reliability (intra-rater and inter-rater, standard error of measurement [SEM], minimum detectable change [MDC],internal consistency); content validity, construct validity with Jebsen Taylor hand function test, QuickDASH, MOS-SF 36 and pain; responsiveness, using an anchor-based approach (ROC curve with area under curve, mean response change) with calculation of MCID. For SEM, MDC and responsiveness, QuickDASH was used for comparison. Results: One hundred and seventy-six patients with hand/wrist injuries were included between May 2013 and February 2015. One hundred and seventy were available for final analysis: 67% men; mean age 43.4 ± 13.2 years; both manual and office workers (46, 5% of each); 37% had a hand or wrist fracture.

show abstract

Section: Internal Consistencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%