The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

A systematic literature review of outcome measures for upper extremity function using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health as reference

A systematic literature review of outcome measures for upper extremity function using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health as reference
A systematic literature review of outcome measures for upper extremity function using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health as reference
Objective. To provide information regarding the (1) responsiveness and reliability of different outcome measures used with persons who have impairments in upper extremity function and (2) their content validity based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF).

Data sources. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for studies on outcome measures used to evaluate upper extremity function; only studies written in English and published between July 1997 and July 2010 were considered.

Study selection. One investigator reviewed titles and abstracts of the identified studies to determine whether the studies met predefined eligibility criteria (eg, study design, age <18 years). Another investigator did the same for 70% of the studies.

Data extraction. All types of outcome measures in the included studies were extracted, and the information retrieved from these outcome measures was linked to the ICF by 2 independent investigators who used standardized linking rules. In addition, studies reporting the clinical responsiveness, interrater reliability, and test-retest reliability of the outcome measures were identified.

Data synthesis. From among the 894 studies that were included in this review, 17 most frequently used outcome measures in the different study populations were identified. Five were patient-reported outcome measures and 12 were clinical outcome measures. The outcome measures show large variability with regard to the areas of functioning and disability addressed. Reliability and responsiveness data are missing for a few outcome measures or for certain populations for which they have been used.

Conclusion. This systematic review provides an overview of the outcome measures used to address functioning and disability as they are related to the upper extremity. The results of this study may help clinicians and researchers select the most appropriate outcome measure for their clinical population or research question according to ICF-based content validity, and additional information on the reliability and responsiveness of the measures is provided. Our findings also can provide directions for further research.
1934-1482
846-860
Velstra, Inge-Marie
310d7fdb-5161-4424-a1fb-22b8a40f45a2
Ballert, Carolina Saskia
f8ed62d0-7de4-40de-aeeb-3abb2f117ac2
Cieza, Alarcos
a0df25c5-ee2c-4580-82b3-d0a75591580e
Velstra, Inge-Marie
310d7fdb-5161-4424-a1fb-22b8a40f45a2
Ballert, Carolina Saskia
f8ed62d0-7de4-40de-aeeb-3abb2f117ac2
Cieza, Alarcos
a0df25c5-ee2c-4580-82b3-d0a75591580e

Velstra, Inge-Marie, Ballert, Carolina Saskia and Cieza, Alarcos (2011) A systematic literature review of outcome measures for upper extremity function using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health as reference. PM&R, 3 (9), 846-860. (doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2011.03.014). (PMID:21944302)

Record type: Article

Abstract

Objective. To provide information regarding the (1) responsiveness and reliability of different outcome measures used with persons who have impairments in upper extremity function and (2) their content validity based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF).

Data sources. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for studies on outcome measures used to evaluate upper extremity function; only studies written in English and published between July 1997 and July 2010 were considered.

Study selection. One investigator reviewed titles and abstracts of the identified studies to determine whether the studies met predefined eligibility criteria (eg, study design, age <18 years). Another investigator did the same for 70% of the studies.

Data extraction. All types of outcome measures in the included studies were extracted, and the information retrieved from these outcome measures was linked to the ICF by 2 independent investigators who used standardized linking rules. In addition, studies reporting the clinical responsiveness, interrater reliability, and test-retest reliability of the outcome measures were identified.

Data synthesis. From among the 894 studies that were included in this review, 17 most frequently used outcome measures in the different study populations were identified. Five were patient-reported outcome measures and 12 were clinical outcome measures. The outcome measures show large variability with regard to the areas of functioning and disability addressed. Reliability and responsiveness data are missing for a few outcome measures or for certain populations for which they have been used.

Conclusion. This systematic review provides an overview of the outcome measures used to address functioning and disability as they are related to the upper extremity. The results of this study may help clinicians and researchers select the most appropriate outcome measure for their clinical population or research question according to ICF-based content validity, and additional information on the reliability and responsiveness of the measures is provided. Our findings also can provide directions for further research.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

e-pub ahead of print date: 23 September 2011
Published date: September 2011
Organisations: Psychology

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 341199
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/341199
ISSN: 1934-1482
PURE UUID: 694f81c5-0fa1-419c-989a-d7c87ac073ff

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 17 Jul 2012 12:22
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 11:36

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Inge-Marie Velstra
Author: Carolina Saskia Ballert
Author: Alarcos Cieza

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×