Disability and rehabilitation · 2024
A scoping review of observation-based tools for assessing use of the upper limb in activities.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wanklyn Tamara, Webster Kate E, Mak-Yuen Yvonne, Rens Zona, Boey Debbie, Bhopti Anoo, Dalliston Claire, Carey Leeanne M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To summarise information about tools available to rate observed performance in activities, tested with populations with upper limb impairment.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: A scoping review was conducted. Articles were included if they reported psychometric properties of tools that could be used with populations with upper limb impairment, had at least one activity item, and item/s involved use of the upper limbs. Information about the tools was extracted, summarised and key findings are presented.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven tools met the inclusion criteria. The results indicated that few tools used client-selected (19%) items or clinician-selected (11%) items. Most tools (70%) used pre-defined items. Fourteen tools (52%) included activity-only items. Eleven tools (41%) had less than half activity items. An in-depth summary of the tools with activity-only items is reported.
CONCLUSION: Many tools exist for assessing observed performance in activities to examine use of the upper limb. However, there were few tools (N = 6) available that assess observed performance in client-selected activities.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: A scoping review was conducted. Articles were included if they reported psychometric properties of tools that could be used with populations with upper limb impairment, had at least one activity item, and item/s involved use of the upper limbs. Information about the tools was extracted, summarised and key findings are presented.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven tools met the inclusion criteria. The results indicated that few tools used client-selected (19%) items or clinician-selected (11%) items. Most tools (70%) used pre-defined items. Fourteen tools (52%) included activity-only items. Eleven tools (41%) had less than half activity items. An in-depth summary of the tools with activity-only items is reported.
CONCLUSION: Many tools exist for assessing observed performance in activities to examine use of the upper limb. However, there were few tools (N = 6) available that assess observed performance in client-selected activities.