Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: technical feasibility was evaluated for conducting standard motor assessment instruments in a remote setting. Remote assessment was compared to co-located assessment for five clinical evaluation instruments: joint range-of-motion (ROM), manual muscle test (MMT), Berg sit-to-stand, Berg forward reach, and timed up and go (TUG). METHODS: co-located and remote rooms were in the same building connected by broadband video and audio. Ten subjects without impairments participated, but were given simulated impairments to mimic the patient population commonly seen in rehabilitation clinics. One therapist performed all co-located testing while another performed all remote assessments. Measurements followed standard clinical methods. Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA and paired t-tests. RESULTS: no differences were found between co-located and remote assessments except for some cases using screen-based ROM measures. Remote ROM tests using snapshots and a virtual goniometer were preferred. A digital dynamometer added no additional information to a visually-based remote MMT assessment.
Durfee et al. (2007) studied this question.