ÄÛBÑо¿Ôº

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Jason Raad MS and the Rehabilitation Measures Team; Updated by Irene Ward, PT, DPT, NCS and the TBI EDGE task force of the Neurology Section of the APTA in 2012; Updated by Heather Anderson and Rie Yoshida of the StrokEdge II task force in 2016.

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 (PD 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:  

Recommendations for use based on acuity level of the patient:

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

Recommendations for use based on ambulatory status after brain injury:

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

Considerations

Observer plots were a less stable method of scoring the WMFT, suggesting relatively higher measurement error for the WMFT than for the ARAT (Nijland et al., 2010).

Bibliography

Chen, H. F., Lin KC, Wu CY, Chen CL. Rasch validation and predictive validity of the action research arm test in patients receiving stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(6):1039-1045.

Edwards, D. F., Lang, C. E., Wagner, J. M., Birkenmeier, R., Dromerick, A. W. An evaluation of the Wolf Motor Function Test in motor trials early after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 93(4): 660-668.

Fritz, S. L., Blanton, S., et al. (2009). "Minimal detectable change scores for the Wolf Motor Function Test." Neurorehabil Neural Repair 23: 662-667. 

Lang, C. E., Edwards, D. F., et al. (2008). "Estimating minimal clinically important differences of upper-extremity measures early after stroke." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 89(9): 1693-1700. 

Lin, K.-C., Hsieh, Y.-W., et al., (2009). ¡°Minimum detectable change and clinically important difference of the Wolf Motor Function Test in stroke patients.¡± Neurohabilitation and Neural Repair 23(5): 429-434.

Morris, D. M., Uswatte, G., et al. (2001). "The reliability of the wolf motor function test for assessing upper extremity function after stroke." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 82: 750-755. 

Nijland, R., van Wegen, E., et al. (2010). "A comparison of two validated tests for upper limb function after stroke: The Wolf Motor Function Test and the Action ÄÛBÑо¿Ôº Arm Test." J Rehabil Med 42(7): 694-696. 

O¡¯Dell, M. W., Grace, K., et al., (2013). ¡°A psychometric evaluation of the Arm Motor Ability Test.¡± J Rehabil Med 45(6): 519¨C527.

Shaw, S. E., Morris, D. M., et al. (2005). "Constraint-induced movement therapy for recovery of upper-limb function following traumatic brain injury." J Rehabil Res Dev 42(6): 769-778. 

Whitall, J., Savin, D. N., Jr., et al. (2006). "Psychometric properties of a modified Wolf Motor Function test for people with mild and moderate upper-extremity hemiparesis." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87(5): 656-660. 

Wing, K., Lynskey, J. V., et al. (2008). "Whole-body intensive rehabilitation is feasible and effective in chronic stroke survivors: a retrospective data analysis." Top Stroke Rehabil 15(3): 247-255. 

Wolf, S. L., Catlin, P. A., et al. (2001). "Assessing Wolf motor function test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke." Stroke 32: 1635-1639. 

Woodbury, M., Velozo C. A., et al., (2010). ¡°Measurement structure of the Wolf Motor Function Test: Implications for motor control theory.¡± Neurorehabil Neural Repair 24(9):  791¨C801.