Primary Image

Rehab Measures Image

Arm Motor Ability Test

Last Updated

Purpose

The AMAT evaluates disabilities in upper extremity function in activities of daily living (ADL) using a quantitative and qualitative measure.

Acronym AMAT

Area of Assessment

Activities of Daily Living
Upper Extremity Function

Assessment Type

Performance Measure

Cost

Not Free

Actual Cost

$25.00

Cost Description

Cost of Equipment

CDE Status

Not a CDE -- last searched 9/18/2024.

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Stroke Recovery

Populations

Key Descriptions

  • The AMAT-13 Version consists of 13 ADL activities with 28 task components; the AMAT-10 version consists of 10 ADL activities with 23 task components (9 ADL activities with 20 task components with removal of the light switch/door item and its three associated tasks by O'Dell et al., 2013), and the Ohio Modified Arm--Motor Ability Test (OMAAT) consists of 9 ADL activities with 20 task components.
  • Each ADL activity item involves one to three component tasks or movement segments.
  • As in the case of most ADL, the components within each compound task either involve differential contributions from the two arms, or of the distal and proximal musculature of an affected arm, or are not of equal difficulty. Thus, the task components in this assessment are measured separately.
  • However, each compound task is performed continuously, as a unit, without the patient’s awareness of component parcellation.
  • One is therefore able to quantify ADL in the manner of a laboratory test without interfering with the natural flow of movement characteristic of everyday activity.
  • Each of tasks is timed and rated according to quality of movement and ability to perform each component part of a compound task. Tasks have either a 1- or 2-minute performance time limit.
  • Scoring: task performance is timed and rated by evaluator on a 6-point functional ability scale ranging from 0 (does not perform with affected arm) to 5 (uses arm at level comparable to unaffected side) and examines paretic upper extremity use. The evaluator also rates the quality of movement on a 6-point scale ranging from 0 (no movement initiated) to 5 (normal movement). The evaluator must also time and rate performance for each of the task components.
  • German version available (O'Dell et al., 2011).

Number of Items

AMAT-13: 13 items with a total of 28 task components
OMAAT: 9 items with a total of 20 task components

Equipment Required

  • Silverware and plate
  • Play-doh
  • Mug
  • Comb
  • Foam Sandwich
  • Towel
  • Jar
  • 2 shirts (different styles)
  • Light switch
  • Door
  • Dried beans
  • Shoe and shoelaces
  • Telephone

Time to Administer

45 minutes

Time stated is for AMAT-13. Time for AMAT-10 or for OMAAT is 30 minutes.

Required Training

Reading an Article/Manual

Age Ranges

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Jane Sullivan PT, DHS, MS and the Stroke EDGE task force of the Neurology Section of the APTA. Follow-up review by Elizabeth Blaschak, OTS; Jenna Colangelo, OTS; and Katherine Kostecki, OTS from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Follow-up review in April 2024 by Tanaya Badsa, MS, OTR/L, CSRS, OTD student, Columbia University.

Body Part

Upper Extremity

ICF Domain

Activity

Measurement Domain

Activities of Daily Living

Professional Association Recommendation

Recommendations for use of the instrument from the Neurology Section of the American Physical Therapy Association’s Multiple Sclerosis Taskforce (MSEDGE), Parkinson’s Taskforce (PD EDGE), Spinal Cord Injury Taskforce (SCI EDGE), Stroke Taskforce (StrokEDGE), Traumatic Brain Injury Taskforce (TBI EDGE), and Vestibular Taskforce (Vestibular EDGE) are listed below. These recommendations were developed by a panel of research and clinical experts using a modified Delphi process.

For detailed information about how recommendations were made, please visit: 

 

Abbreviations:

HR

Highly Recommend

R

Recommend

LS / UR

Reasonable to use, but limited study in target group  / Unable to Recommend

NR

Not Recommended

 Recommendations for use based on acuity level of the patient:

 

Acute

(CVA < 2 months post)

(SCI < 1 month post)

(Vestibular < 6 months post)

Subacute

(CVA 2 to 6 months)

(SCI 3 to 6 months)

Chronic

(> 6 months)

StrokEDGE

NR

R

R

Recommendations based on level of care in which the assessment is taken:

 

 

Acute Care

Inpatient Rehabilitation

Skilled Nursing Facility

Outpatient

Rehabilitation

Home Health

StrokEDGE

NR

R

R

R

R

Recommendations for entry-level physical therapy education and use in research:

 

 

Students should learn to administer this tool? (Y/N)

Students should be exposed to tool? (Y/N)

Appropriate for use in intervention research studies? (Y/N)

Is additional research warranted for this tool (Y/N)

StrokEDGE

No

Yes

Yes

Not reported

Considerations

  • Lengthy to complete
  • Participants must have some active range of motion capacity in the affected upper extremity. 
  • Ability to follow multi-step directions verbally or through modeling is a prerequisite necessary to engage (O’Dell et al., 2011.
  • Most ADL test items have multiple sub-tasks, which may pose as challenging if participants have severe cognitive or language limitations (O’Dell et al., 2011) 

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

 

Stroke

back to Populations

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Subacute Stroke: (Kopp et al, 1997; n = 33 subacute stroke inpatients with moderate to mild upper extremity motor deficit; median age = 66 years; sex = 12 females; median Motricity Index Arm Score = 89; median chronicity = 43 days; 13-item AMAT)

 

Chronic Stroke: (Fulk et al., 2017; n = 146, age = 57.1 (10.96) years, age range = 29-83; chronic stroke survivors with stable, mild to moderate upper extremity (UE) hemiparesis; mean time since stroke onset for participants in sample = 59.37 (63.22) months; 88 participants with hemiparesis affecting their right UEs; 82 participants with hemiparesis affecting their dominant UEs; 13-item AMAT)

  • MDC in AMAT Based on Therapists’ Perception of Change
    • Grasp: 0.44
    • Release: 0.42
    • Ability to move affected arm and hand: 0.42
    • Ability to perform Canadian Occupational Performance Measure tasks:   0.42
    • Overall arm and hand function: 0.42
  • MDC in AMAT Based on Participants’ Perception of Change
    • Grasp: 0.44
    • Release: 0.42
    • Ability to move affected arm and hand: 0.40
    • Ability to perform Canadian Occupational Performance Measure tasks:   0.40
    • Overall arm and hand function: 0.40

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Chronic Stroke: (Fulk et al., 2017; 13-item AMAT)

  • MCID in AMAT Based on Therapists’ Perception of Change
    • Grasp: 0.34
    • Release: 0.42
    • Ability to move affected arm and hand: 0.40
    • Ability to perform Canadian Occupational Performance Measure tasks:   0.35
    • Overall arm and hand function: 0.42
  • MCID in AMAT Based on Participants’ Perception of Change
    • Grasp: 0.29
    • Release: 0.31
    • Ability to move affected arm and hand: 0.29
    • Ability to perform Canadian Occupational Performance Measure tasks:   0.30
    • Overall arm and hand function: 0.40

Cut-Off Scores

Stroke: (O’Dell et al., 2013; n = 32 community dwelling stroke survivors prior to upper extremity robotic treatment; mean age = 56 (12.4) years; age range = 35-85; gender = 72% male; ethnicity = 56% white, 28% black, 16% other; handedness = 88% right-handed; mean years post-stroke = 4.1 (4.5; range = 0.8-25.2); 9-item AMAT (10-item ARAT minus “light switch/door” item and its three associated tasks))

  • Low impairment (n = 10, median normalized AMAT score = 35)
  • Middle impairment (n = 8, median normalized AMAT score = 23.5)
  • High impairment (n = 14, median normalized AMAT score = 17.5)

Normative Data

Chronic Stroke: (Fulk et al., 2017; 13-item AMAT)

  • Mean score for all participants on AMAT = 3.0 (0.68)

 

Test/Retest Reliability

Subacute Stroke: (Kopp et al, 1997; 13-item AMAT)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.99 for performance time, 0.93 for functional ability, and 0.94 for quality of movement)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Subacute Stroke: (Kopp et al, 1997; 13-item AMAT)

  • Excellent interrater reliability (ICC = 0.97 - 0.99)

 

Chronic Stroke: (Daley et al., 2005; = 12; age range = 21-62 years; male = 9; 1-4 years post-stroke; chronic stroke survivors (>12 months) stratified by Fugl-Meyer score and randomly assigned to robotics & motor learning (ROB-ML) or functional neuromuscular stimulation & motor learning (FNS-ML) groups; 13-item AMAT)   

  • Excellent interrater reliability (ICC = 0.82 for shoulder/elbow tasks; ICC = 0.96 for wrist/hand tasks)
  • Excellent intrarater reliability (ICC = 0.94 for shoulder/elbow tasks; ICC = 0.97 for wrist/hand tasks)

Internal Consistency

Chronic Stroke: (Persch et al., 2018; = 67; mean age = 59.8 (12.8); male = 40; right-sided lesion = 92.5%; ischemic stroke = 44, hemorrhagic = 15, unknown = 8; Ohio Modified Arm-Motor Ability Test (OMAAT)-9 tasks with total of 20 task components and single rating scale to evaluate ability to carry out functional activities)

  • Excellent: Cronbach's alpha = 0.97*
  • Excellent: Ordinal alpha = 0.98*
  • Excellent: Gugiu's bootstrap reliability = 0.97*

 

Stroke: (O’Dell et al., 2013; 9-item AMAT)

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93*
  • Excellent: Person Separation Index = 0.86 with inclusion of extreme scores
  • Excellent: Person Separation Index = 0.88 with exclusion of extreme scores

*Scores higher than 0.9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions

 

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent validity:

Subacute Stroke: (Kopp et al., 1997; 13-item AMAT)

  • Adequate to excellent concurrent validity with the Motricity-Index-Arm (r = 0.45 for performance time, = 0.61 for functional ability, and = 0.60 for quality of movement)

 

Chronic Stroke: (Chae et al, 2003; = 30; age ≥ 18; mean age = 51 (15.2); male = 60%; stroke onset to study entry > 6 months; mean time from stroke onset to study entry = 39.5 (32.9) months; chronic stroke survivors recruited from outpatient stroke clinic with ability to follow 3-stage commands; 13-item AMAT) 

  • Excellent concurrent validity with the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) total (r = -0.92 for performance time, = 0.94 for functional ability, and = 0.94 for quality of movement)

Construct Validity

Convergent validity:

Chronic Stroke: (Persch et al., 2018; OMAAT)

  • Excellent convergent validity between OMAAT and ARAT total scores (r = 0.90, p < 0.0001)

     


Stroke: (O’Dell et al., 2013; 9-item AMAT)

  • Excellent correlation with Wolf Motor Function Test, FMA, and ARAT (0.78-0.79)
  • Excellent correlation with FMA wrist/hand subscore (0.74)
  • Excellent correlation with FMA shoulder/elbow subscore (0.66)
  • Adequate correlation with SIS hand subscore (0.40)
  • Poor correlation with SIS communication subscore (-0.16)

 

Chronic Stroke: (Daley et al., 2005; 13-item AMAT)

  • Excellent correlation with FIM self-care tasks (= 0.60)
  • Adequate correlation with SIS hand scale (= 0.59)
  • Poor correlation with FIM communication tasks (= 0.09)

Content Validity

O’Dell et al. (2013, 9-item AMAT) found consistencies between the AMAT-9 results and the Rasch model expectations, even with the small number of participants in the study (p. 9).

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Chronic Stroke: (Chae et al, 2003; 13-item AMAT)

  • The AMAT time of performance exhibited significant ceiling and floor effects with respect to the Fugl-Meyer Assessment. This result suggests that the AMAT time of performance is not able to discriminate between varying levels of motor impairments.

Responsiveness

Chronic Stroke: (Fulk et al., 2017; 13-item AMAT)

  • Sensitivity in AMAT Based on Therapists’ Perception of Change
    • Grasp: 0.64
    • Release: 0.60
    • Ability to move affected arm and hand: 0.58
    • Ability to perform Canadian Occupational Performance Measure tasks:  0.62
    • Overall arm and hand function: 0.62
  • Sensitivity in AMAT Based on Participants’ Perception of Change
    • Grasp: 0.67
    • Release: 0.64
    • Ability to move affected arm and hand: 0.53
    • Ability to perform Canadian Occupational Performance Measure tasks:  0.56
    • Overall arm and hand function: 0.50

Subacute Stroke: (Kopp et al., 1997; 13-item AMAT)

  • In individuals with subacute stroke and mild to moderate movement deficits, the AMAT detected the difference in change occurring as a result of the passage of 1 versus 2 weeks (Kopp et al, 1997).

Stroke: (O’Dell et al., 2013; 9-item AMAT)

  • The AMAT exhibited intermediate responsiveness (SRM = 0.98), while the FMA was highest at 1.26, the WMFT was lowest at 0.81, and the ARAT somewhat higher at 0.89

Bibliography

Chae, J., Labatia, I., et al. (2003). Upper limb motor function in hemiparesis: concurrent validity of the Arm Motor Ability test. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 82(1): 1-8. 

Daly, J.J., Hogan, N., Perepezko, E.M., Krebs, H.I., Rogers, J.M., Goyal, K.S., …Ruff, R.L. (2005). Response to upper-limb robotics and functional neuromuscular stimulation following stroke. Journal of Rehabilitation 嫩B研究院 & Development, 42(6), 723-736.

Fulk G, Martin R, Page SJ. (2017). Clinically Important Difference of the Arm Motor Ability Test in Stroke Survivors. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 31(3):272-279. 

Kopp, B., Kunkel, A., Flor, H., et al. (1997). The Arm Motor Ability Test: reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of an instrument for assessing disabilities in activities of daily living. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 78(6): 615-620. Find it on PubMed

O’Dell, M.W., Kim, G., Rivera Finnen, L., Polistena, C. (2011). Clinical Implications of Using the Arm Motor Ability Test in Stroke Rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92, 830-836.

O’Dell, M. W., Kim, G., Rivera, L., et al., (2013). A Psychometric Evaluation of the Arm Motor Ability Test. J Rehabil Med., 45(6), 519-527. .

Persch, A. C., Wagner, A., Fleming, M., Gugiu, P. C., & Page, S. J. (2018). Ohio Modified Arm-Motor Ability Test (OMAAT): An Optimized Measure of Upper Extremity Functional Limitation in Hemiparetic Stroke. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72(4), 7204205030p1–7204205030p6. 

Poole, J.L., & Whitney, S.L. (2001). Assessments of motor function post stroke: A review. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, 19(2), 1-22.