Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 894

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test: a multicentre study

Platz, Thomas, Pinkowski, Cosima, van Wijck, Frederike, Kim, In-Ha, di Bella, Paolo, Johnson, Garth·2005·Clinical Rehabilitation

Abstract

Objectives: To establish: (1) inter-rater and test–retest reliability of standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer upper limb section, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test in patients with paresis secondary to stroke, multiple sclerosis or traumatic brain injury and (2) correlation between these arm motor scales and more general measures of impairment and activity limitation. Design: Multicentre cohort study. Setting: Three European referral centres for neurorehabilitation. Subjects: Thirty-seven stroke, 14 multiple sclerosis and five traumatic brain injury patients. Main measures: Scores of the Fugl-Meyer Test (arm section), Action Research Arm Test, and Box and Block Test derived from video information. Results: All three motor tests showed very high inter-rater and test–retest reliability (ICC and rho for main variables>0.95). Correlation between the motor scales was very high (rho>0.92). Motor scales correlated moderately highly with the Hemispheric Stroke Scale, a measure of impairment (rho=0.660–0.689), but not with the Modified Barthel Index, a measure of the ability to cope with basic activities of daily living (rho=0.044–0.086). Conclusions: The standardized guidelines assured comparability of test administration and scoring across clinical facilities. The arm motor scales provided information that was not identical to information from the Hemispheric Stroke Scale or the Modified Barthel Index. Address for correspondence: Priv.-Doz. Dr T Platz, Klinik Berlin, Kladower Damm 223, 14089 Berlin, Germany.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1191/0269215505cr832oa

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 23 references

Cited by

See all 894

Metadata

Authors
Platz, T., Pinkowski, C., van Wijck, F., Kim, I.-H., di Bella, P., & Johnson, G.
Venue
Clinical Rehabilitation
Published
2005-06
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
404-411
ISSN
  • 0269-2155 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0873
OpenAlex
W2136361599
Cited by
894
References
23
FWCI
14.64
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: Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test: a multicentre study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1191/0269215505cr832oa
The paper
Platz, T., Pinkowski, C., van Wijck, F., Kim, I.-H., di Bella, P., & Johnson, G. (2005). Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test: a multicentre study. Clinical Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1191/0269215505cr832oa

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.