Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2006 Oct;3(4):505-24.
doi: 10.1016/j.nurx.2006.07.009.

Issues in selecting outcome measures to assess functional recovery after stroke

Affiliations
Review

Issues in selecting outcome measures to assess functional recovery after stroke

Sharon Barak et al. NeuroRx. 2006 Oct.

Abstract

Most patients who survive a stroke experience some degree of physical recovery. Selecting the appropriate outcome measure to assess physical recovery is a difficult task, given the heterogeneity of stroke etiology, symptoms, severity, and even recovery itself. Despite these complexities, a number of strategies can facilitate the selection of functional outcome measures in stroke clinical trial research and practice. Clinical relevance in stroke outcome measures can be optimized by incorporating a framework of health and disability, such as the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). The ICF provides the conceptual basis for measurement and policy formulations for disability and health assessment. All outcome measures selected should also have sound psychometric properties. The essential psychometric properties are reliability, validity, responsiveness, sensibility, and established minimal clinically important difference. It is also important to establish the purpose of the measurement (discriminative, predictive, or evaluative) and to determine whether the purpose of the study is to evaluate the efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention. In addition, when selecting outcome measures and time of assessment, the natural history of stroke and stroke severity must be regarded. Finally, methods for acquiring data must also be considered. We present a comprehensive overview of the issues in selecting stroke outcome measures and characterize existing measures relative to these issues.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. American Heart Association. 2001 heart and stroke statistical update. Dallas, TX, 2000.
    1. Duncan PW, Goldstein LB, Matchar D, Divine GW, Feussner J. Measurement of motor recovery after stroke: outcome assessment and sample size requirements. Stroke. 1992;23:1084–1089. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.23.8.1084. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Loewen SC, Anderson BA. Predictors of stroke outcome using objective measurement scales. Stroke. 1990;21:78–81. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.21.1.78. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wade DT, Wood VA, Hewer RL. Recovery after stroke: the first 3 months. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1985;48:7–13. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.48.1.7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kinsella G, Ford B. Acute recovery from patterns in stroke patients: neuropsychological factors. Med J Aust. 1980;2:663–666. - PubMed

Publication types