The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Trunk Control Test as an Early Predictor of Stroke Rehabilitation Outcome
Abstract
Background and Purpose The aim of this study was to investigate the construct and predictive validity of the Trunk Control Test (TCT) in postacute stroke patients by comparing TCT scores at admission and discharge with the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) scores. Methods Forty-nine patients participated in the study. The TCT examines four movements: rolling from a supine position to the weak side (T1) and to the strong side (T2), sitting up from a lying-down position (T3), and sitting balance (T4). The FIM is an 18-item scale (13 motor [motFIM] and 5 cognitive [cognFIM]) used to determine the level of dependence of patients in daily life. Results Thirty-six patients (73%) increased their TCT overall score at discharge. The TCT item-total correlations were high, both at admission and discharge ( P <.0001). The individual TCT items were intercorrelated. Furthermore, the homogeneity of the TCT was confirmed by a high Cronbach’s index. High correlations were found between admission and discharge scores in the different tests (TCT, FIM, and motFIM; P <.0001) and between TCT at admission and FIM ( P <.0001) and motFIM ( P <.0001) at admission. TCT at admission alone explained 71% of the variance in motFIM at discharge. Conclusions The TCT showed a good sensitivity to change in assessing recovery of stroke patients. The high item-total correlation and Cronbach’s α value of the TCT suggest that there is one homogeneous construct underlying the item list. The TCT construct validity was confirmed by the correlation between this test and the FIM scores. TCT at admission predicted motFIM at discharge even better than motFIM at admission alone. Possibly, the TCT captures basic motor skills that foreshadow the recovery of more complex behavioral skills described by the FIM.
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
A review of standing balance recovery from stroke
Geurts, A. C. H., de Haart, M., van Nes, I. J. W., & Duysens, J. (2005) · Gait & Posture · doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2004.10.002 · Cited by 474
Karatas, M., Çetin, N., Bayramoglu, M., & Dilek, A. (2004) · American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · doi:10.1097/01.phm.0000107486.99756.c7 · Cited by 300
Anticipatory postural adjustment in selected trunk muscles in poststroke hemiparetic patients
Dickstein, R., Shefi, S., Marcovitz, E., & Villa, Y. (2004) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2003.05.011 · Cited by 192
Recovery of Gait After Stroke: What Changes?
Buurke, J. H., Nene, A. V., Kwakkel, G., Erren-Wolters, V., IJzerman, M. J., & Hermens, H. J. (2008) · Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair · doi:10.1177/1545968308317972 · Cited by 137
Krukowska, J., Bugajski, M., Sienkiewicz, M., & Czernicki, J. (2016) · Neurologia i Neurochirurgia Polska · doi:10.1016/j.pjnns.2016.08.004 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Franchignoni, F. P., Tesio, L., Ricupero, C., & Martino, M. T.
- Venue
- Stroke
- Published
- 1997-07
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1382-1385
- ISSN
- 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4628
- OpenAlex
- W2115455386
- Cited by
- 295
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.68
- 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: Trunk Control Test as an Early Predictor of Stroke Rehabilitation Outcome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.28.7.1382
- The paper
- Franchignoni, F. P., Tesio, L., Ricupero, C., & Martino, M. T. (1997). Trunk Control Test as an Early Predictor of Stroke Rehabilitation Outcome. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.28.7.1382
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.