Reaching performance scale for stroke – Test‐retest reliability, measurement error, concurrent and discriminant validity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Post-stroke upper limb motor improvement can be better quantified by describing movement patterns characterizing movement quality and use of compensations. Movement patterns can be described using both kinematic and clinical outcomes. One clinical outcome that assesses movement quality and compensations used for reaching a Close (18 points) and Far target (18 points) is the Reaching Performance Scale for Stroke (RPSS). OBJECTIVE: To estimate the pilot test-retest reliability and validity (concurrent, discriminant) of the RPSS in individuals with chronic stroke. DESIGN: Retrospective data analysis. SETTING: Research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-two individuals with upper limb hemiparesis ≥6 months prior to participation. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: RPSS Close and Far Target scores. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) helped assess pilot test-retest reliability on a subset of 14 participants. Concurrent validity was assessed for individual RPSS items with corresponding kinematic outcomes (trunk displacement, shoulder flexion, shoulder horizontal adduction, elbow extension, trajectory straightness) using Pearson correlations. We also ran multiple regression analyses with the RPSS total scores and used kinematic outcomes as the criterion standard. Logistic regression analyses estimated discriminant validity. We divided participants into two groups based on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) scores (mild: ≥50/66; moderate-to-severe: ≤49/66). RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was excellent for Close (ICC = 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-0.99) and Far targets (ICC = 0.98, 95% CI 0.95-0.99). Individual RPSS items for both targets were mildly to moderately correlated with corresponding kinematic values. A combination of trajectory straightness, elbow extension, and trunk displacement explained the majority of the variance in RPSS scores (47%) for both targets. The RPSS scores discriminated between individuals with mild and moderate-to-severe motor impairment for both Close (ExpB = 3.33, P < .001; 95% CI 1.70-6.52) and Far targets (ExpB = 2.59, P < .001, 95% CI 1.65-4.07). Cutoff points for transition between groups were 15.5 (Close target) and 14 (Far target). CONCLUSION: The RPSS is a valid clinical measure with excellent pilot results of test-retest reliability for assessing movement patterns and compensations used for reaching.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".