Preliminary study of the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure for Children and its reliability

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Corry K van der Sluis²  Pieter U Dijkstra⁴  Heleen A Reinders-Messelink¹  Raoul M Bongers³  Ecaterina Vasluian² 

[1] Rehabilitation Center ‘Revalidatie Friesland’, Beetsterzwaag, The Netherlands;Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands;University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Center of Human Movement Sciences, Groningen, The Netherlands;Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

关键词: Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine;    Hand injuries;    Disability evaluation;    Treatment outcome;    Inter-observer variability;    Intra-observer variability;    Reproducibility of results;   

Others  :  1125573
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-15-199

 received in 2013-12-16, accepted in 2014-05-30,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure (SHAP) is currently used in the adult population for evaluating the functionality of impaired or prosthetic hands. The SHAP cannot be used for children because of the relatively larger size of the objects used to perform SHAP tasks and unknown clinimetric properties. The aims of this study were to adapt the SHAP for use in children (SHAP-C), to determine norm values for the SHAP-C, and to analyze the reliability of the SHAP-C.

Methods

The SHAP-C was adapted based on the SHAP protocol. Some objects were downsized, and the timing of tasks was performed by the rater instead of the participant. Intra- and inter-rater reliability were assessed in 24 children (5 [0.54] y/o) with unimpaired hands. The repeatability coefficients (RCs) were calculated. An RC ≤ 75% of the mean SHAP-C task values was considered good reliability.

Results

Participants were able to perform all SHAP-C tasks. The means of the SHAP-C tasks ranged from 0.75 to 1.21 seconds for abstract objects and from 0.64-19.13 seconds for activities of daily living. The RCs of a single assessor did not exceed 75% in 17/26 SHAP-C tasks, displaying a relatively good intra-rater reliability, whereas the RCs for the inter-rater reliability exceeded 75% in 22/26 SHAP-C tasks, thus displaying poor reliability.

Conclusion

In this first study that adjusted the SHAP for pediatric use, we found that all SHAP-C objects and tasks could be performed by children. The intra-rater reliability was better than the inter-rater reliability. Although the SHAP-C appears to be a promising instrument, the protocol requires further modifications to provide reliable measurements in children.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Vasluian et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Light CM, Chappell PH, Kyberd PJ: Establishing a standardized clinical assessment tool of pathologic and prosthetic hand function: Normative data, reliability, and validity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002, 83(6):776-783.
• [2]Van der Niet O, Reinders-Messelink HA, Bongers RM, Bouwsema H, Van Der Sluis CK: The i-LIMB hand and the DMC plus hand compared: A case report. Prosthet Orthot Int 2010, 34(2):216-220.
• [3]van der Niet O, Bongers RM, van der Sluis CK: Functionality of i-LIMB and i-LIMB Pulse hands: Case report. J Rehabil Res Dev 2013, 50(8):1123-1128.
• [4]Metcalf CD, Woodward H, Wright V, Chappell PH, Burridge JH, Yule VT: Changes in hand function with age and normative unimpaired scores when measured with the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure. Hand Therapy 2008, 13(3):79-83.
• [5]Kyberd PJ: The influence of control format and hand design in single axis myoelectric hands: Assessment of functionality of prosthetic hands using the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure. Prosthet Orthot Int 2011, 35(3):285-293.
• [6]Kyberd PJ, Murgia A, Gasson M, Tjerks T, Metcalf C, Chappell PH, Warwick K, Lawson SEM, Barnhill T: Case studies to demonstrate the range of applications of the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure. Br J Occup Ther 2009, 72(5):212-218.
• [7]Bouwsema H, Kyberd PJ, Hill W, van der Sluis CK, Bongers RM: Determining skill level in myoelectric prosthesis use with multiple outcome measures. J Rehabil Res Dev 2012, 49(9):1331-1348.
• [8]Ramirez IA, Lusk CP, Dubey R, Highsmith MJ, Maitland ME: Crossed four-bar mechanism for improved prosthetic grasp. J Rehabil Res Dev 2009, 46(8):1011-1020.
• [9]Dalley SA, Bennett DA, Goldfarb M: Preliminary functional assessment of a multigrasp myoelectric prosthesis. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2012, 2012:4172-4175.
• [10]Johnson A: Prevalence and characteristics of children with cerebral palsy in Europe. Dev Med Child Neurol 2002, 44(9):633-640.
• [11]Vasluian E, van der Sluis CK, van Essen AJ, Bergman JE, Dijkstra PU, Reinders-Messelink HA, de Walle HE: Birth prevalence for congenital limb defects in the northern Netherlands: A 30-year population-based study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013, 14(1):323. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Lillis KA, Jaffe DM: Playground injuries in children. Pediatr Emerg Care 1997, 13(2):149-153.
• [13]Bourke-Taylor H: Melbourne Assessment of Unilateral Upper Limb Function: Construct validity and correlation with the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. Dev Med Child Neurol 2003, 45(2):92-96.
• [14]Gilmore R, Sakzewski L, Boyd R: Upper limb activity measures for 5- to 16-year-old children with congenital hemiplegia: A systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol 2010, 52(1):14-21.
• [15]Thorley M, Lannin N, Cusick A, Novak I, Boyd R: Construct validity of the Quality of Upper Extremity Skills Test for children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2012, 54(11):1037-1043.
• [16]Buffart LM, Roebroeck ME, Pesch-Batenburg JM, Janssen WG, Stam HJ: Assessment of arm/hand functioning in children with a congenital transverse or longitudinal reduction deficiency of the upper limb. Disabil Rehabil 2006, 28(2):85-95.
• [17]Hill W, Kyberd P, Hermansson LN, Hubbard S, Stavdahl O, Swanson S: Upper Limb Prosthetic Outcome Measures (ULPOM): A working group and their findings. J Prosthet Orthot 2009, 21(Supplement):69-82.
• [18]Hubbard S: Pediatric upper limb outcome measurement. J Prosthet Orthot 2009, 21(9):227-231.
• [19]Hermansson LM, Bodin L, Eliasson AC: Intra- and inter-rater reliability of the Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control. J Rehabil Med 2006, 38(2):118-123.
• [20]Wright FV: Evidence note: Upper-Limb Prosthetic Outcome Measures. Acad Today Adv Orthotic Prosthet Orthot Int 2013, 9:1.
• [21]Wagner LV, Davids JR: Assessment tools and classification systems used for the upper extremity in children with cerebral palsy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012, 470(5):1257-1271.
• [22]Bagley AM, Molitor F, Wagner LV, Tomhave W, James MA: The Unilateral Below Elbow Test: A function test for children with unilateral congenital below elbow deficiency. Dev Med Child Neurol 2006, 48(7):569-575.
• [23]Krumlinde-Sundholm L, Holmefur M, Kottorp A, Eliasson AC: The Assisting Hand Assessment: Current evidence of validity, reliability, and responsiveness to change. Dev Med Child Neurol 2007, 49(4):259-264.
• [24]Wright V: Prosthetic outcome measures for use with upper limb amputees: A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature, 1970 to 2009. J Prosthet Orthot 2009, 21(4S):3-P63.
• [25]Lindner HY, Natterlund BS, Hermansson LM: Upper limb prosthetic outcome measures: Review and content comparison based on International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Prosthet Orthot Int 2010, 34(2):109-128.
• [26]Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure [http://www.shap.ecs.soton.ac.uk webcite]
• [27]Assessors’ Protocol: Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure. [http://www.shap.ecs.soton.ac.uk/files/protocol.pdf webcite]
• [28]Light CM: An intelligent hand prosthesis and evaluation of pathological and prosthetic hand function. PhD thesis. UK: University of Southampton; 2000.
• [29]Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 1(8476):307-310.
• [30]Bland JM, Altman DG: Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999, 8(2):135-160.
• [31]Piek JP, Hands B, Licari MK: Assessment of motor functioning in the preschool period. Neuropsychol Rev 2012, 22(4):402-413.
• [32]Dotan R, Mitchell C, Cohen R, Klentrou P, Gabriel D, Falk B: Child-adult differences in muscle activation–a review. Pediatr Exerc Sci 2012, 24(1):2-21.
• [33]Altman DG, Bland JM: Measurement in medicine: The analysis of method comparison studies. The Statistician 1983, 32:307-317.
• [34]Vaz S, Falkmer T, Passmore AE, Parsons R, Andreou P: The case for using the repeatability coefficient when calculating test-retest reliability. PLoS One 2013, 8(9):e73990.
• [35]Jorritsma W, Dijkstra PU, de Vries GE, Geertzen JH, Reneman MF: Physical dysfunction and nonorganic signs in patients with chronic neck pain: Explorative study into interobserver reliability and construct validity. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2014, 0:1-32.
• [36]Tunset A, Kjaer P, Samir Chreiteh S, Secher Jensen T: A method for quantitative measurement of lumbar intervertebral disc structures: An intra- and inter-rater agreement and reliability study. Chiropr Man Therap 2013, 21(1):26-709X-21-26.
• [37]Kosinski RJ: A literature review on reaction time. [http://biae.clemson.edu/bpc/bp/Lab/110/reaction.htm webcite]
• [38]Vatavu R, Zaiţi IA: Automatic recognition of object size and shape via user-dependent measurements of the grasping hand. Int J Human-Computer Stud 2013, 71(5):590-607.
• [39]Gallus J, Mathiowetz V: Test-retest reliability of the Purdue Pegboard for persons with multiple sclerosis. Am J Occup Ther 2003, 57(1):108-111.
• [40]Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF): Learning, playing and interacting: Good practice in the early years foundation stage. Nottingam: DCSF; 2009. [http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/2412 webcite]
• [41]Jongbloed-Pereboom M, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MW, Steenbergen B: Norm scores of the box and block test for children ages 3–10 years. Am J Occup Ther 2013, 67(3):312-318.
• [42]Mandigo J, Thompson L: Go with their flow: How Flow Theory can help practitioners to intrinsically motivate children to be physically active. Phys Educ 1998, 55:29. November 2013
• [43]Darrah J, Senthilselvan A, Magill-Evans J: Trajectories of serial motor scores of typically developing children: Implications for clinical decision making. Infant Behav Develop 2009, 32(1):72-78.
• [44]Largo RH, Fischer JE, Rousson V: Neuromotor development from kindergarten age to adolescence: Developmental course and variability. Swiss Med Wkly 2003, 133(13–14):193-199.
• [45]da Costa CSN, Batistão MV, Rocha NACF: Quality and structure of variability in children during motor development: A systematic review. Res Dev Disabil 2013, 34(9):2810-2830.
• [46]Darrah J, Hodge M, Magill-Evans J, Kembhavi G: Stability of serial assessments of motor and communication abilities in typically developing infants—implications for screening. Early Hum Dev 2003, 72(2):97-110.
• [47]Largo RH, Caflisch JA, Hug F, Muggli K, Molnar AA, Molinari L, Sheehy A, Gasser ST: Neuromotor development from 5 to 18 years. Part 1: Timed performance. Dev Med Child Neurol 2001, 43(7):436-443.
• [48]Metcalf CD: The relationship between movement and function of the wrist and hand: A clinically focused kinematic study. PhD thesis. UK: University of Southampton; 2008.
• [49]Adolph KE, Berger SA: Motor development. In Handbook of child psychology: Cognition, perception, and language. Volume 2. 6th edition. Edited by Kuhn D, Siegler RS. New York: Wiley; 2006:161-213.