Test–retest reliability and responsiveness of an adapted version of the ABILHAND questionnaire to assess performance in bimanual daily life activities in stroke patients in sub-Saharan Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ABILHAND is a widely used questionnaire assessing bimanual daily life activities in adults with stroke. A recently modified version tailored for the sub-Saharan African population (ABILHAND-Stroke Benin) has been created. This study aimed to investigate its test-retest reliability and responsiveness. The study included 132 adults with stroke with a mean (SD) age = 54.6 (11.2) years and 40% women. The mean (SD) time since stroke was 15.2 (12) months for the subsample ( n = 51) included in the reliability analysis and 1 (0.6) month for the subsample ( n = 81) of the responsiveness analysis. Participants were assessed within a week interval with the ABILHAND-Stroke Benin questionnaire for the reliability analysis. As for the responsiveness analysis, they were additionally assessed with the ACTIVLIM-Stroke questionnaire, the Box and Block Test (BBT), and the Stroke Impairment Assessment Set, at baseline (T1), 2-month later (T2), and on average of 1.5 (0.5) years after stroke (T3). The ABILHAND-Stroke Benin questionnaire showed an excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.98, P < 0.001, minimal detectable change = 10.3%). Regarding the responsiveness analysis, participants showed a larger improvement during the acute phase (T1-T2) compared with the chronic phase (T2-T3). Changes with the ABILHAND-Stroke Benin questionnaire were significantly correlated with changes with the other outcome measures (correlations ranged from 0.36 to 0.70, P < 0.05) except with the BBT less affected hand. The ABILHAND-Stroke Benin questionnaire demonstrates an excellent test-retest reliability and was responsive to changes in adults with stroke.
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 | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".