Abstract

Many studies of stroke rehabilitation use the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) as an outcome, which measures upper limb function by scoring the ability to complete functional tasks. This report describes an issue encountered when analysing the ARAT subscales in a trial of upper limb therapies after stroke. The subscales of the ARAT at three months followed a ‘U-shaped’ distribution, and therefore, comparing means or medians was not appropriate. A simple alternative approach was chosen that dichotomised the subscales. When analysing the ARAT, the shape of the distributions must be checked in order to choose the most appropriate descriptive and inferential statistical techniques. In particular, if the data follows a ‘U-shaped’ distribution, a simple dichotomising or a more sophisticated approach is needed. These should also be considered for heavily skewed distributions, often arising from substantial floor or ceiling effects. Inappropriate analyses can lead to misleading conclusions.

Highlights

  • Many clinical studies of upper limb rehabilitation after stroke use the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) as an outcome

  • Many clinical studies of upper limb rehabilitation after stroke use the ARAT as an outcome. It measures upper limb function by scoring the ability of a participant to complete a range of functional tasks [1]

  • A review [2] found that the percentage of participants with the highest or lowest values of the ARAT total score varied considerably across studies, with many reporting percentages above 15%

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Many clinical studies of upper limb rehabilitation after stroke use the ARAT as an outcome. A floor effect is when many participants obtain the minimum possible score, whereas a ceiling effect is when many participants obtain the maximum score The existence of these raises doubt whether the scale really covers the full range of ability being measured. A review [2] found that the percentage of participants with the highest or lowest values of the ARAT total score varied considerably across studies, with many reporting percentages above 15% At this level, lower reliability and responsiveness of the scale are considered [3]. The VECTORS study did not report these effects for subscales, but since the median values for grasp, grip and gross movement were the maximum possible, substantial ceiling effects are likely. The primary outcome was whether a participant had achieved an improvement over time of a given size in the ARAT total, but secondary

Outcome n
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call