2015
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.12949
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Selective Control of the Upper Extremity Scale: validation of a clinical assessment tool for children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy

Abstract: Aim The ability to determine the relationship between selective motor control and upper extremity function in children with unilateral cerebral palsy (CP), and to measure the functional outcome and efficacy of interventions designed to improve selective motor control, has been limited by the lack of an objective, validated tool. The primary objective of this study is to describe the development of a clinical tool entitled Selective Control of the Upper Extremity Scale (SCUES), and present evidence of its valid… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

3
42
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
3
42
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Future studies incorporating the assessment of selective motor control, as measured with e.g. the ‘Selective Control of the Upper Extremity Scale’ [25], will increase our understanding of the role of motor selectivity in UL movement pathology.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Future studies incorporating the assessment of selective motor control, as measured with e.g. the ‘Selective Control of the Upper Extremity Scale’ [25], will increase our understanding of the role of motor selectivity in UL movement pathology.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Effect sizes were also calculated for the between-group comparisons by using GPower V.3.1.7 (University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany) as previously described by Guo et al 10 ; 95% CI was also calculated for the effect sizes via an Excel spreadsheet. 33 The effect sizes were generally defined as small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d = 0.8). 34 The PRTEE scores were submitted to a 2-way repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) with time (before treatment, after treatment and 4 weeks after treatment) as the within-subject factor and group (kinesiotaping plus exercises, sham taping plus exercises, and exercises only groups) as the between-subject factor.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Mann‐Whitney U test was used to analyze differences between groups. Effect sizes were also calculated for the between‐group comparisons by using GPower V.3.1.7 (University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany) as previously described by Guo et al; 95% CI was also calculated for the effect sizes via an Excel spreadsheet . The effect sizes were generally defined as small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d = 0.8) .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The challenge becomes even more complex when the individual with CP displays hand and arm coordination problems, supported by the large ES obtained in the CVTTB. Therefore, grabbing a ball while performing reaching movements might cause, due to diminished selective motor control, an increase in hand and arm muscle tone ( 45 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%