The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A review of the properties and limitations of the Ashworth and modified Ashworth Scales as measures of spasticity
Abstract
Background: The Ashworth Scale and the modified Ashworth Scale are the primary clinical measures of spasticity. A prerequisite for using any scale is a knowledge of its characteristics and limitations, as these will play a part in analysing and interpreting the data. Despite the current emphasis on treating spasticity, clinicians rarely measure it. Objectives: To determine the validity and the reliability of the Ashworth and modified Ashworth Scales. Study design: A theoretical analysis following a structured literature review (key words: Ashworth; Spasticity; Measurement) of 40 papers selected from the BIDS-EMBASE, First Search and Medline databases. Conclusions: The application of both scales would suggest that confusion exists on their characteristics and limitations as measures of spasticity. Resistance to passive movement is a complex measure that will be influenced by many factors, only one of which could be spasticity. The Ashworth Scale (AS) can be used as an ordinal level measure of resistance to passive movement, but not spasticity. The modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) will need to be treated as a nominal level measure of resistance to passive movement until the ambiguity between the ‘1’ and ‘1+’ grades is resolved. The reliability of the scales is better in the upper limb. The AS may be more reliable than the MAS. There is a need to standardize methods to apply these scales in clinical practice and research.
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
Platz, T., Pinkowski, C., van Wijck, F., Kim, I.-H., di Bella, P., & Johnson, G. (2005) · Clinical Rehabilitation · doi:10.1191/0269215505cr832oa · Cited by 894
Self-citationSteeves, J. D., Lammertse, D., Curt, A., Fawcett, J. W., Tuszynski, M. H., Ditunno, J. F., Ellaway, P. H., Fehlings, M. G., Guest, J. D., Kleitman, N., et al. (2007) · Spinal Cord · doi:10.1038/sj.sc.3102008 · Cited by 470
Bhakta, B. B. (2000) · Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp.69.2.217 · Cited by 299
Risks of falls in subjects with multiple sclerosis
Cattaneo, D., De Nuzzo, C., Fascia, T., Macalli, M., Pisoni, I., & Cardini, R. (2002) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1053/apmr.2002.32825 · Cited by 295
Collin, C., Ehler, E., Waberzinek, G., Alsindi, Z., Davies, P., Powell, K., Notcutt, W., O'Leary, C., Ratcliffe, S., Nováková, I., et al. (2010) · Neurological Research · doi:10.1179/016164109x12590518685660 · Cited by 283
Metadata
- Authors
- Pandyan, A. D., Johnson, G. R., Price, C. I. M., Curless, R. H., Barnes, M. P., & Rodgers, H.
- Venue
- Clinical Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1999-10
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 373-383
- ISSN
- 0269-2155 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-0873
- OpenAlex
- W2114866171
- Cited by
- 833
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.37
- 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: A review of the properties and limitations of the Ashworth and modified Ashworth Scales as measures of spasticity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1191/026921599677595404
- The paper
- Pandyan, A. D., Johnson, G. R., Price, C. I. M., Curless, R. H., Barnes, M. P., & Rodgers, H. (1999). A review of the properties and limitations of the Ashworth and modified Ashworth Scales as measures of spasticity. Clinical Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1191/026921599677595404
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.
