The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Measuring physical impairment and disability with the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment.
Abstract
The Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment measures the physical impairments and disabilities that impact on the lives of individuals with stroke. This measure has three overall purposes: 1) to stage motor recovery to classify individuals in terms of clinical characteristics, 2) to predict rehabilitation outcomes, and 3) to measure clinically important change in physical function. This study was carried out to evaluate the ability of this measure to yield reliable and valid results. Thirty-two subjects from a stroke rehabilitation treatment unit were assessed by research and treating physical therapists using multiple measures on multiple occasions. The measure's three purposes dictated the study objectives and design. Intrarater, interrater, and test-retest reliabilities of the impairment and disability inventories were estimated. Reliability coefficients for the total scores ranged from 0.97 to 0.99. Construct and concurrent validities were studied by examining the correlations between this and other measures. A priori hypothetical constructs stated that these correlations should exceed 0.60. These constructs were confirmed; the impairment inventory total score was found to correlate with the Fugl-Meyer Test (r = 0.95, p < 0.001) and the disability inventory with the Functional Independence Measure (r = 0.79, p < 0.05). Additional study hypotheses were also substantiated. This study confirms that the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment yields both reliable and valid results. With the evaluation study now completed, the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment can be used with confidence as both a clinical and a research tool that can discriminate among subjects and evaluate patient outcomes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Classification of Walking Handicap in the Stroke Population
Perry, J., Garrett, M., Gronley, J. K., & Mulroy, S. J. (1995) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.26.6.982 · Cited by 1,560
Task-Specific Training With Trunk Restraint on Arm Recovery in Stroke: Randomized Control Trial
Michaelsen, S. M., Dannenbaum, R., & Levin, M. F. (2006) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000196940.20446.c9 · Cited by 353
Eng, J. J., Dawson, A. S., & Chu, K. S. (2004) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/s0003-9993(03)00436-2 · Cited by 329
How Active Are People With Stroke?: Use of Accelerometers to Assess Physical Activity
Rand, D., Eng, J. J., Tang, P.-F., Jeng, J.-S., & Hung, C. (2009) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.108.523621 · Cited by 325
Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Participation
Salter, K., Jutai, J., Teasell, R., Foley, N., BItensky, J., & Bayley, M. (2005) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/0963828040008552 · Cited by 313
Metadata
- Authors
- Gowland, C., Stratford, P., Ward, M., Moreland, J., Torresin, W., Van Hullenaar, S., Sanford, J., Barreca, S., Vanspall, B., & Plews, N.
- Venue
- Stroke
- Published
- 1993-01
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 58-63
- ISSN
- 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4628
- OpenAlex
- W2157729546
- Cited by
- 840
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring physical impairment and disability with the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.24.1.58
- The paper
- Gowland, C., Stratford, P., Ward, M., Moreland, J., Torresin, W., Van Hullenaar, S., Sanford, J., Barreca, S., Vanspall, B., & Plews, N. (1993). Measuring physical impairment and disability with the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.24.1.58
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.