The Stroke Upper and Lower Extremity Physical Function Measures Were Supported for Score Reliability, Validity, and Administration Efficiency for Patients Poststroke.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to (1) evaluate the suitability of newly developed items for calibration into 2 item banks for stroke upper extremity (SUE) and stroke lower extremity (SLE) physical function (PF) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and to (2) assess score reliability and validity and PROM administration efficiency based on computerized adaptive testing (CAT). METHODS: A retrospective longitudinal study involving patients poststroke who were treated in outpatient rehabilitation clinics and responded to 28 and 25 region-specific candidate items addressing tasks related to upper or lower extremity PF, respectively, was conducted. Item response theory (IRT) model assumptions of unidimensionality, local independence, item fit, and presence of differential item functioning were evaluated. CAT-generated scores were assessed for reliability, validity, and administration efficiency, and 10-item short forms were assessed for reliability. RESULTS: Cohorts consisted of 2017 patients with stroke involving the upper extremity and 2107 patients with stroke involving the lower extremity (mean age [SD]: SUE = 62 [14] and SLE = 63 [14]; range = 14-89). Two solutions (SUE: 28-item; SLE: 24-item) supported unidimensionality and fit to the IRT model, with reliability estimates >0.93 for all administration modes. No items demonstrated differential item functioning. Scores discriminated among multiple patient groups in clinically logical ways, with better outcomes observed for patients who were younger, were male, had less chronicity, and had fewer comorbidities. The SUE and SLE, respectively, had 1 and 0.3% floor effects and 4.3 and 1.1% ceiling effects. Change score effect sizes were 0.5 (SUE) and 0.6 (SLE). Simulated CAT scores required an average of 6 (SUE) and 5.6 (SLE) items (median = 5). CONCLUSION: The stroke upper extremity and stroke lower extremity PROM scores were reliable, valid, and efficient and had moderate change effect sizes for assessing PF as perceived by patients poststroke with upper and lower extremity impairments. Scores had negligible floor and acceptable ceiling effects. Based on these results, the stroke PROMs are suitable for research and routine clinical practice. IMPACT: As IRT-based measures, these PROMs support clinical practice guideline recommendations for the use of outcome measures in neurologic physical therapy and the administration of condition-specific functional questions with low response burden for patients. The 10-item short forms offer a feasible alternative administration mode when CAT administration is not available.

A Comparison of Locomotor Therapy Interventions: Partial-Body Weight-Supported Treadmill, Lokomat, and G-EO Training in People With Traumatic Brain Injury.

BACKGROUND: Literature in the application of gait training techniques in persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI) is limited. Current techniques require multiple staff and are physically demanding. The use of a robotic locomotor training may provide improved training capacity for this population. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of 3 different modes of locomotor therapy on gait velocity and spatiotemporal symmetry using an end effector robot (G-EO); a robotic exoskeleton (Lokomat), and manual assisted partial-body weight-supported treadmill training (PBWSTT) in participants with traumatic brain injury. DESIGN: Randomized, prospective study. SETTING: Tertiary rehabilitation hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 22 individuals with ≥12 months chronic TBI with hemiparetic pattern able to walk overground without assistance at velocities between 0.2 and 0.6 m/s. INTERVENTION: Eighteen sessions of 45 minutes of assigned locomotor training. OUTCOME MEASURES: Overground walking self-selected velocity (SSV), maximal velocity (MV), spatiotemporal asymmetry ratio, 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), and mobility domain of Stroke Impact Scale (MSIS). RESULTS: Severity in walking dysfunction was similar across groups as determined by walking velocity data. At baseline, participants in the Lokomat group had a baseline velocity that was slightly slower compared with the other groups. Training elicited a statistically significant median increase in SSV for all groups compared with pretraining (Lokomat, P = .04; G-EO, P = .03; and PBWSTT, P = .02) and MV excluding the G-EO group (Lokomat, P = .04; PBWSTT, P = .03 and G-EO, P = .15). There were no pre-post significant differences in swing time, stance time, and step length asymmetry ratios at SSV or MV for any of the interventions. Mean rank in the change of SSV and MV was not statistically significantly different between groups. Participants in the G-EO and PBWSTT groups significantly improved their 6MWT posttraining (P = .04 and .03, respectively). The MSIS significantly improved only for the Lokomat group (P = .04 and .03). The data did not elicit between-groups significant differences for 6MWT and MSIS. There was less use of staff for Lokomat than G-EO. CONCLUSIONS: Locomotor therapy using G-EO, Lokomat, or PBWSTT in individuals with chronic TBI increased SSV and MV without significant changes in gait symmetry. Staffing needed for therapy provision was the least for the Lokomat. A larger study may further elucidate changes in gait symmetry and other training parameters. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.