Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose: To estimate the reliability and validity of three shortened versions of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory (CAHAI). Method: The study sample consisted of 39 individuals who had had a stroke. Twenty-four individuals were classified as acute and 15 as chronic. The CAHAI-13 was administered three times: an initial assessment, a second assessment within 36 hours, and a final assessment two to six weeks after the initial assessment. The Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment were administered at the first and third time points. Based on the clinical judgment of four therapists, seven-, eight-, and nine-item versions of the CAHAI were produced. Test–retest reliability and cross-sectional and longitudinal validity (sensitivity to change) were evaluated. Results: Test–retest reliability varied from 0.96 for the CAHAI-7 to 0.97 for the CAHAI-8 and CAHAI-9. Cross-sectional validity for the ARAT was 0.95, 0.95, and 0.94, and longitudinal validity was 0.97, 0.93, and 0.94 for the seven-, eight-, and nine-item versions of the CAHAI, respectively. Conclusions: All shortened versions maintained the same high degree of reliability and construct and longitudinal validity as the original CAHAI-13. Therapists and researchers may select from three valid, shorter versions of a new upper limb functional measure to facilitate effective standardized assessment within limited time and resources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barreca et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: