Journal of the Korean Society of Physical Medicine (대한물리의학회지)

The Korean Society of Physical Medicine (대한물리의학회)
권호 표지

The Clinical Application of modified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile for Chronic Stroke Patients

만성 편마비 환자의 modified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile의 임상 적용

  • Kim, Seong-Yeol (Department of Physical Therapy, Kyungnam University) ;
  • Lee, Je-Hoon (Department of Physical Therapy, Korean Olympic Committee Training Center) ;
  • An, Seung-Heon (Department of Physical Therapy, National Rehabilitation Center)
  • 김성렬 (경남대학교 물리치료학과) ;
  • 이제훈 (대한올림픽 위원회 선수촌 물리치료실) ;
  • 안승헌 (국립재활원 물리치료실)
  • Received : 2010.10.04
  • Accepted : 2010.11.20
  • Published : 2010.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose : The examine the reliability and validity of the modified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile(mEFAP) for assessing gait function in chronic stroke patients. Methods : A total of 45 stroke patients, who had a stroke more than 6 months, participated in the study. Reliability was determined by Intra-class Correlation Coefficient($ICC_{3,1}$), including Bland and Altman method (Standard Error of Measurement: SEM, Small Real Differences: SRD). Validity was examined by correlating results to the gait ability(mEFAP, Modified Motor Assessment Scale-Gait(MMAS-G), Scandinavian Stroke Scale-Gait(SSS-G), Functional Ambulation Category(FAC), 10m Waking Test(10m WT)), and Fugl Meyer-Lower/Extremity(FM-L/E), Berg Balance Scale(BBS). Results : Inter-rater reliability for the total mEFAP was High($ICC_{2,1}$=.998), and absolute reliability were excellent (SEM: 1.75, SRD: 4.85). Subjects without assistance factor performed better on all tests than did subjects who had stroke. There were significant correlations between the mEFAP and MMAS-G, SSS-G, FAC(r=-.66~-.79), 10 m WT(r=-.86), and FM-L/E, BBS(r=-.72~-.78), indicating good validity. Increased times on the mEFAP correlated with poor performance on the gait ability, motor function of lower extremity, BBS and slow gait speeds on the 10 m WT in stroke patients. Conclusion : The mEFAP can be administered easily and comprehensively. It is a reliable gait assessment tool for patients with stroke and correlated with known of function, the mEFAP may be a clinically useful measure of ambulation.

Keywords

References

  1. 김재현. 노인의 보행에 대한 평가 도구의 신뢰도와 타당도 조사 연구. 대한물리치료학회지. 2009;21 (1):41-8.
  2. 안승헌, 박창식, 이현주. 뇌졸중 환자의 균형과 기능 수행 및 보행 검사를 위한 평가도구의 비교: BBS, TUG, Fugl-Meyer, MAS-G, C･MGS, MBI. 한국전문물리치료학회지. 2007;14(3):64-71.
  3. 안승헌, 이제훈. 만성뇌졸중 환자의 Postural assessment scale for stroke의 신뢰도와 타당도. 대한물리치료학회지. 2009;21(1):9-18.
  4. 정이정, 이정아, 신원섭 등. Characteristics of initiation and termination of tibialis anterior Contraction in Adults With Hemiplegia: A Preliminary Study. 한국전문물리치료학회지. 2007;14(4):50-7.
  5. Allet L, Leemann B, Guyen E et al. Effect of different walking aids on walking capacity of patients with poststroke hemiparesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(8):1408-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2009.02.010
  6. Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med. 1998;26 (4):217-38. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-199826040-00002
  7. Baer HR, Wolf SL. Modified emory functional ambulation profile an outcome measure for the rehabilitation of poststroke. Gait Dysfunction. Stroke. 2001;32(4):973-9. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.32.4.973
  8. Barber M, Fail M, Shields M et al. Validity and reliability of estimating the scandinavian stroke scale score from medical records. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004;17(2-3):224-7. https://doi.org/10.1159/000075795
  9. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307-10.
  10. Bogl, Thorbahn LD, Newton RA. Use of the berg balance test to predict falls in elderly persons. Phys Ther. 1996;76(6):576-85.
  11. Carr JH, Shepherd RB, Nordholm L, et al. Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Phys Ther. 1985;65(2):175-80.
  12. Duncan PW, Propst M, Nelson SG. Reliability of the fugl-meyer assessment of sensorimotor recovery following cerebrovascular accident. Phys Ther. 1983;63(10):1606-10.
  13. Fisher AG, & Degraff M. Nationally speaking. Improving functional assessment in occupational therapy: Recommendations and philosophy for change. Am J Occup Ther. 1993;47(3):199-200. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.47.3.199
  14. Eng JJ, Chu KS, Dawson AS et al. Functional walk tests in individuals with stroke: relation to perceived exertion and myocardial exertion. Stroke. 2002;33 (3):756-61. https://doi.org/10.1161/hs0302.104195
  15. Fox KM, Felsenthal G, Hebel JR et al. A portable neuromuscular function assessment for studying recovery from hip fracture. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(2):171-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90163-X
  16. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I et al. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13-31.
  17. Garland SJ, Willems DA, Ivanova TD et al. Recovery of standing balance and functional mobility after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84(12): 1753-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2003.03.002
  18. Goldie PA, Matyas TA, Evans OM. Deficit and change in gait velocity during rehabilitation after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(10): 1074-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90072-6
  19. Goldsmith CH, Boers M, Bombardier C et al. Criteria for clinically important changes in outcomes: development, scoring and evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis patient and trial profiles. OMERACT Committee. J Rheumatol. 1993;20(3): 561-5.
  20. Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR et al. Clinical gait assessment in the neurologically impaired: reliability and meaningfulness, Phys Ther. 1984; 64(1):35-40.
  21. Hurkmans HL, Bussmann JB, Benda E et al. Techniques for measuring weight bearing during standing and walking. Clin Biomech. 2003;18(7): 576-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0268-0033(03)00116-5
  22. Katherine J, Sullivan, Barbar, J et al. Step training with body weight support: the effect of treadmill speed and practice paradigm on poststroke locomotor recovery. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(5): 683-91. https://doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2002.32488
  23. Liaw LJ, Hsieh CL, Lo SK et al. Psychometric properties of the modified emory functional ambulation profile in stroke patients, Clin Rehabil. 2006;20(5):429-37. https://doi.org/10.1191/0269215506cr950oa
  24. Liaw LJ, Hsieh CL, Lo SK et al. The relative and absolute reliability of two balance performance measures in chronic stroke patients. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(9):656-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280701400698
  25. Means KM. The obstacle course: a tool for the assessment of functional balance and mobility in the elderly. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1996;33(4):413-29.
  26. Mehrholz J, Wagner K, Rutte K et al. Predictive validity and responsiveness of the functional ambulation category in hemiparetic patients after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(10): 1314-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.06.764
  27. Michal KL, Shochina M. Early cycling test as a predictor of walking performance in stroke patients Physiother Res Int. 2005;10(1):1-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.19
  28. Moe-Nilssen R, Helbostad JL. Estimation of gait cycle characteristics by trunk accelerometry. J Biomech. 2004;37(1):121-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(03)00233-1
  29. Perry J, Garrett M, Gronley JK et al. Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke. 1995;26(6):982-9. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.26.6.982
  30. Pomeroy VM, Chambers SH, Giakas G et al. Reliability of measurement of tempo-spatial parameters of gait after stroke using GaitMat II. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18(2):222-7. https://doi.org/10.1191/0269215504cr725oa
  31. Portney LG, Watkins MP, Foundations of clinical research: application to practice. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall Health, 2000.
  32. Richards JD, Pramanik A, Sykes L et al. A comparison of knee kinematic characteristics of stroke patients and age-matched healthy volunteers. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17(5):565-71. https://doi.org/10.1191/0269215503cr651oa
  33. Rothstein JM, Echternach JL. Primer on Measurement: An introductory guide to measurement issues. Aleaxndria, VA, American Physical Therapy Association, 1999.
  34. Schmid A, Duncan PW, Studenski S, et al. Improvements in speed-based gait classifications are meaningful. Stroke. 2007;38(7):2096-100. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.106.475921
  35. Schuck P, Zwingmann C. The 'smallest real difference' as a measure of sensitivity to change: a critical analysis. Int J Rehabil Res. 2003;26(2):85-91. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004356-200306000-00002
  36. Shumway-Cook A. ＆ Wollacott MH. Motor control: theory and practical application (1st ed). Maryland: Williams & Wilkins. 1995.
  37. Simondson JA, Goldie P, Greenwood KM. The mobility scale for acute stroke Patients: concurrent validity. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17(5):558-64. https://doi.org/10.1191/0269215503cr650oa
  38. Smidt N, van der Windt DA, Assendelft WJ et al. Inter observer reproducibility of the assessment of severity of complaints, grip strength, and pressure pain threshold in patients with lateral epicondylitis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83(8):1145-50. https://doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2002.33728
  39. Steffen TM, Hacker TA, Mollinger L. Age and gender-related test performance in community dwelling elderly people: Six-minute walk test, Berg balance scale, timed up & go test, and gait speeds. Phys Ther. 2002;82(2):128-37.
  40. Thomas M, Jankovic J, Suteerawattananon M et al. Clinical gait and balance scale(gabs): validation and utilization. J Neurol Sci. 2004;217(1):89-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2003.09.005
  41. Thomas JI, Lane JV. A Pilot study to explore the predictive validity of 4 measures of falls risk in frail elderly patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(8):1636-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2005.03.004
  42. Wolf SL, Catlin PA, Gage K et al. Establishing the reliability and validity of measurements of walking time using the emory functional ambulation profile. Phys Ther. 1999;79(12):1122-33.