Advertisement

Comparison of Self-Report Versus Sensor-Based Methods for Measuring the Amount of Upper Limb Activity Outside the Clinic

Published:February 02, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.12.025

      Abstract

      Objective

      To compare self-reported with sensor-measured upper limb (UL) performance in daily life for individuals with chronic (≥6mo) UL paresis poststroke.

      Design

      Secondary analysis of participants enrolled in a phase II randomized, parallel, dose-response UL movement trial. This analysis compared the accuracy and consistency between self-reported UL performance and sensor-measured UL performance at baseline and immediately post an 8-week intensive UL task-specific intervention.

      Setting

      Outpatient rehabilitation.

      Participants

      Community-dwelling individuals with chronic (≥6mo) UL paresis poststroke (N=64).

      Interventions

      Not applicable.

      Main Outcome Measures

      Motor Activity Log amount of use scale and the sensor-derived use ratio from wrist-worn accelerometers.

      Results

      There was a high degree of variability between self-reported UL performance and the sensor-derived use ratio. Using sensor-based values as a reference, 3 distinct categories were identified: accurate reporters (reporting difference ±0.1), overreporters (difference >0.1), and underreporters (difference <−0.1). Five of 64 participants accurately self-reported UL performance at baseline and postintervention. Over half of participants (52%) switched categories from pre-to postintervention (eg, moved from underreporting preintervention to overreporting postintervention). For the consistent reporters, no participant characteristics were found to influence whether someone over- or underreported performance compared with sensor-based assessment.

      Conclusions

      Participants did not consistently or accurately self-report UL performance when compared with the sensor-derived use ratio. Although self-report and sensor-based assessments are moderately associated and appear similar conceptually, these results suggest self-reported UL performance is often not consistent with sensor-measured performance and the measures cannot be used interchangeably.

      Keywords

      List of abbreviations:

      AOU (amount of use), CI (confidence interval), MAL (Motor Activity Log), UL (upper limb)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • World Health Organization
        International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).
        World Health Organization, Geneva2001
        • Bradburn N.M.
        • Rips L.J.
        • Shevell S.K.
        Answering autobiographical questions: the impact of memory and inference on surveys.
        Science (New York, N.Y.). 1987; 236: 157-161
        • Adams S.A.
        • Matthews C.E.
        • Ebbeling C.B.
        • et al.
        The effect of social desirability and social approval on self-reports of physical activity.
        Am J Epidemiol. 2005; 161: 389-398
        • Uswatte G.
        • Foo W.L.
        • Olmstead H.
        • Lopez K.
        • Holand A.
        • Simms L.B.
        Ambulatory monitoring of arm movement using accelerometry: an objective measure of upper-extremity rehabilitation in persons with chronic stroke.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; 86: 1498-1501
        • Uswatte G.
        • Giuliani C.
        • Winstein C.
        • Zeringue A.
        • Hobbs L.
        • Wolf S.L.
        Validity of accelerometry for monitoring real-world arm activity in patients with subacute stroke: evidence from the extremity constraint-induced therapy evaluation trial.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006; 87: 1340-1345
        • Prince S.A.
        • Adamo K.B.
        • Hamel M.E.
        • Hardt J.
        • Connor Gorber S.
        • Tremblay M.
        A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review.
        Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008; 5: 56
        • Lang C.E.
        • Strube M.J.
        • Bland M.D.
        • et al.
        Dose response of task-specific upper limb training in people at least 6 months poststroke: a phase II, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial.
        Ann Neurol. 2016; 80: 342-354
        • Waddell K.J.
        • Strube M.J.
        • Bailey R.R.
        • et al.
        Does task-specific training improve upper limb performance in daily life poststroke?.
        Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017; 31: 290-300
        • Bailey R.R.
        • Lang C.E.
        Upper-limb activity in adults: referent values using accelerometry.
        J Rehabi Res Dev. 2013; 50: 1213-1222
        • Uswatte G.
        • Taub E.
        • Morris D.
        • Light K.
        • Thompson P.A.
        The Motor Activity Log-28: assessing daily use of the hemiparetic arm after stroke.
        Neurology. 2006; 67: 1189-1194