查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 比較中風病患姿勢評估量表及短版於復健住院者之反應性
- 醫學中心物理治療部門對中風病患使用的評估量表之心理計量特性
- 5點量尺與3點量尺量表之反應性比較--在伯格式平衡量表之發現
- 平衡量表於中風住院病人之臨床應用
- 中風病人姿勢控制評估量表之心理計量特性
- 短版巴氏量表應用於中風患者之最小可偵測變化值及反應性
- 原版柏格氏平衡量表與短版柏格氏平衡量表應用於亞急性中風病人之反應性比較
- Comparison of the Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke and the Berg Balance Scale among Ambulatory Patients with Chronic Stroke
- 護理介入方案對輕度中風患者之成效
- 腦中風患者吞嚥功能臨床評估可靠性之探討
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 比較中風病患姿勢評估量表及短版於復健住院者之反應性=Comparison of Group- and Individual-Level Responsiveness of the Original and Short-Form Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients in Individuals in Rehabilitation Wards |
---|---|
作 者 | 李士捷; 黃怡靜; 黃千瑀; 宋貞儀; 林恭宏; 李淑君; 謝清麟; | 書刊名 | 職能治療學會雜誌 |
卷 期 | 34:1 2016.06[民105.06] |
頁 次 | 頁37-52 |
分類號 | 418.996 |
關鍵詞 | 中風病患姿勢控制評估量表; 中風; 反應性; Postural assessment scale for stroke patients; Stroke; Responsiveness; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 反應性(responsiveness)是評估工具偵測受測者功能改變之能力,亦為成效指標必備的心理計量特性。中風病患姿勢控制評估量表(Postural Assessment Scalefor Stroke Patients, PASS)及其短版(Short Form-PASS, SFPASS)是為中風病人特製且具良好心理計量特性之平衡功能測驗,具臨床常態使用之潛能。昔日研究曾比較PASS 與SFPASS之團體與個別層級反應性於中風後14天且間隔二週的病患。然而,單一研究無法斷定評估工具之反應性,且PASS與SFPASS應用於復健住院病患的個別層級反應性尚屬未知。因此,本研究目的為:交叉驗證PASS與SFPASS應用於中風復健住院時期之團體與個別層級反應性。共379位中風病患參與本研究,其分別於復健住院後及出院前一周評估PASS共二次;SFPASS則擷取自PASS。團體層級反應性指標為t檢定驗證團體層、凱濟斯效應值 (Kazis' effect size) 及標準化平均反應值 (standardized response mean,SRM);個別層級反應性指標則為進步超過最小可偵測差異值 (minimal detectablechange, MDC) 之人數比例。PASS與SFPASS於前、後測之平均分數差異顯著 (p < .001),且效應值相似(Kazis' effect size:0.74與0.70;SRM:1.09 與1.00)。PASS可呈現較多進步超過MDC(63.0 %比53.0 %) 之病患,且此差異顯著 (p < .001)。本研究結果顯示PASS與SFPASS皆具良好的團體層級反應性,但SFPASS之個別層級反應性較PASS差。我們建議使用者宜採用PASS做為復健住院病患之療效評估工具;而SFPASS則可用以追蹤病患群體之平衡功能以提升施測效率。 |
英文摘要 | Responsiveness is the ability of measures to detect people’s change, which is necessary for outcome measures. The Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients (PASS) and Short-Form PASS (SFPASS) were developed for stroke patients with sound psychometric properties, which have a potential for routine clinical assessments. A previous study has examined the group-level and individual-level responsiveness of the PASS/SFPASS in patients at 14 days after stroke. However, the individual-level responsiveness of the PASS/SFPASS was unclear. Thus, the purpose was cross-validation of the group- and individual-level responsiveness of the PASS and SFPASS in inpatients receiving rehabilitation. A total of 397 participants were recruited. The PASS was assessed within one week after admission and before discharge from the rehabilitation ward, and the SFPASS was derived from PASS. Group-level responsiveness was examined using paired t-test, Kazis’ effect size, and standardized response mean (SRM). Individual-level responsiveness was examined through the proportion of people whose change in balance function was larger than minimal detectable change. Mean differences of the PASS and SFPASS between pre- and post-test were significant (p < .001). Both measures had similar effect size (Kazis’ effect size: 0.74 and 0.70; SRM: 1.09 and 1.00). The PASS is more sensitive at detecting people’s change (63.0 %; 53%), and the difference was significant (p < .001). PASS had better individual-level responsiveness than SFPASS while the group-level responsiveness was similar. We suggest that the PASS is better for detecting the change of balance function for individual, while SFPASS is more efficiency for group change. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。