Psychometric properties of Upper-body Dressing Scale in people with stroke.
Shamay S M Ng, Peiming Chen, Him-Shun Chang and 8 others
PMID 37073768WHAT IT FOUND
Timing how long it takes a stroke patient to put on a shirt distinguishes them from healthy adults with high accuracy.
The standard score failed to do this because patients with good cognition needed no help. Use the time taken, not the cue count, to track recovery.
Key findings
01The time taken to dress was significantly longer for stroke patients than healthy adults and accurately distinguished the two groups, whereas the standard score showed no significant difference.
02The dressing time correlated with motor function, balance, and upper-limb use, but the standard score did not correlate with these measures due to a ceiling effect in cognitively intact patients.
03Dressing time increased significantly with worse motor impairment and higher fall risk, but the standard score did not change across these subgroups.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The stroke group had significantly different sex, weight, and BMI compared to the healthy group, which may have influenced the dressing time results. The study only included patients with relatively preserved cognition (AMT score ≥ 7) and minimal upper-limb movement, so results do not apply to those with severe aphasia, neglect, or paralysis. The standard score failed to distinguish groups because the participants were too cognitively intact to need cues, creating a ceiling effect. Participants were recruited from self-help groups, suggesting they may be more active than the general stroke population.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume the standard Upper-Body Dressing Scale score is ineffective for all patients. It failed here because the participants had good cognition and needed no cues. In patients with aphasia or neglect, the score remains the appropriate measure of assistance needed.