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
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.
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
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An expanded disability status scale (EDSS)
Kurtzke, J. F. (1983) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.33.11.1444 · Cited by 15,011
The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance
Fugl-Meyer, A., Jääskö, L., Leyman, I., Olsson, S., & Steglind, S. (1975) · Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.2340/1650197771331 · Cited by 5,564
International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
Chard, G. (2004) · British Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.1177/030802260406700101 · Cited by 3,688
Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation
Shah, S., Vanclay, F., & Cooper, B. (1989) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(89)90065-6 · Cited by 2,527
Adult Norms for the Box and Block Test of Manual Dexterity
Mathiowetz, V., Volland, G., Kashman, N., & Weber, K. (1985) · The American Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.5014/ajot.39.6.386 · Cited by 2,105
PRELIMINARY TRIAL OF CARISOPRODOL IN MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS.
Ashworth, B. (1964) · PubMed · Cited by 1,475
Deyo, R. A., Diehr, P., & Patrick, D. L. (1991) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(05)80019-4 · Cited by 1,364
Lyle, R. C. (1981) · International Journal of Rehabilitation Research · doi:10.1097/00004356-198112000-00001 · Cited by 1,326
Sample size requirements for estimating intraclass correlations with desired precision
Bonett, D. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1108 · Cited by 987
Cited by
Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke
Pollock, A., Farmer, S. E., Brady, M. C., Langhorne, P., Mead, G. E., Mehrholz, J., & van Wijck, F. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010820.pub2 · Cited by 909
Mehrholz, J., Pohl, M., Platz, T., Kugler, J., & Elsner, B. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006876.pub4 · Cited by 678
Self-citationSullivan, 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
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
Intensive upper limb neurorehabilitation in chronic stroke: outcomes from the Queen Square programme
Ward, N. S., Brander, F., & Kelly, K. (2019) · Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2018-319954 · Cited by 341
Metadata
- Authors
- Platz, T., Pinkowski, C., van Wijck, F., Kim, I.-H., di Bella, P., & Johnson, G.
- Venue
- Clinical Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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.