The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Motor Recovery after Stroke: A Critical Review of Its Measurement Properties
Abstract
Measurement of recovery after stroke is becoming increasingly important with the advent of new treatment options under investigation in stroke rehabilitation research. The Fugl-Meyer scale was developed as the first quantitative evaluative instrument for measuring sensorimotor stroke recovery, based on Twitchell and Brunnstrom’s concept of sequential stages of motor return in the hemiplegic stroke patient. The Fugl-Meyer is a well-designed, feasible and efficient clinical examination method that has been tested widely in the stroke population. Its primary value is the 100-point motor domain, which has received the most extensive evaluation. Excellent interrater and intrarater reliability and construct validity have been demonstrated, and preliminary evidence suggests that the Fugl-Meyer assessment is responsive to change. Limitations of the motor domain include a ceiling effect, omission of some potentially relevant items, and weighting of the arm more than the leg. Further study should test performance of this scale in specific subgroups of stroke patients and better define its criterion validity, sensitivity to change, and minimal clinically important difference. Based on the available evidence, the Fugl-Meyer motor scale is recommended highly as a clinical and research tool for evaluating changes in motor impairment following stroke.
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
Cites
Feinstein, A. R. (1987) · doi:10.2307/j.ctt1xp3vbc · Cited by 538
Cited by
Usefulness of the Berg Balance Scale in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review
Blum, L., & Korner-Bitensky, N. (2008) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.2522/ptj.20070205 · Cited by 1,207
Chollet, F., Tardy, J., Albucher, J.-F., Thalamas, C., Berard, E., Lamy, C., Bejot, Y., Deltour, S., Jaillard, A., Niclot, P., et al. (2011) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(10)70314-8 · Cited by 925
Sullivan, K. J., Tilson, J. K., Cen, S. Y., Rose, D. K., Hershberg, J., Correa, A., Gallichio, J., McLeod, M., Moore, C., Wu, S. S., et al. (2011) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.110.592766 · Cited by 445
Mirror Therapy Promotes Recovery From Severe Hemiparesis: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Dohle, C., Püllen, J., Nakaten, A., Küst, J., Rietz, C., & Karbe, H. (2009) · Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair · doi:10.1177/1545968308324786 · Cited by 435
Mental Practice in Chronic Stroke: Results of a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial
Page, S. J., Levine, P., & Leonard, A. (2007) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000260205.67348.2b · Cited by 409
Metadata
- Authors
- Gladstone, D. J., Danells, C. J., & Black, S. E.
- Venue
- Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-09
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 232-240
- ISSN
- 0888-4390 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-9683
- 1552-6844
- OpenAlex
- W2098661447
- Cited by
- 2,032
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.55
- 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: The Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Motor Recovery after Stroke: A Critical Review of Its Measurement Properties. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/154596802401105171
- The paper
- Gladstone, D. J., Danells, C. J., & Black, S. E. (2002). The Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Motor Recovery after Stroke: A Critical Review of Its Measurement Properties. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. https://doi.org/10.1177/154596802401105171
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.