Reliability of remote evaluation for the Fugl–Meyer assessment and the action research arm test in hemiparetic patients after stroke

Abstract

ABSTRACTBackground Blinding for outcome assessors is considered less possible in rehabilitation treatment trials than in pharmacologic trials. This problem can be solved in part by the standardized remote evaluation system, in which researchers video-record patients for centralized assessment using prospectively standardized shooting procedures, and then outside assessors evaluate the videos using prospectively standardized methods.Objective To assess the inter-rater reliability of remote evaluation for the Fugl–Meyer assessment (FMA) and the action research arm test (ARAT) in hemiparetic patients after stroke.Methods A prospective, cross-sectional, single-center study involving 30 patients with mild-to-severe hemiparesis was conducted (Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.umin.ac.jp/. Unique identifier: UMIN000022192). Two assessments (direct observation and video observation) were performed for each participant by trained assessors. The direct observation assessment was video-recorded for the video observation assessment. In the current study, a standardized guidebook for test administration and scoring was used, along with prospectively standardized shooting procedures.Results Regarding the sum scores of the total/subtests of the FMA and ARAT, the intraclass correlation coefficient ranged from 0.992 to 0.998 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.960–0.999; p < 0.0001) and Spearman’s rho ranged from 0.949 to 1.000 (95% CI, 0.985–1.000; p < 0.0001). Regarding the individual item scores of the outcome measures, weighted kappa (median of the sum scores of total/subtests) ranged from 0.921 to 1.000.Conclusions Remote evaluation of the FMA and ARAT reliably assesses the affected upper extremities in patients with mild-to-severe hemiparesis after stroke.