Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the ADL-focused Occupation-based Neurobehavioural Evaluation (A-ONE J): Applying Rasch analysis methods.
Yasuhiro Higashi, Shinichi Takabatake, Asako Matsubara and 3 others
PMID 31217760WHAT IT FOUND
The Japanese ADL-focused Neurobehavioural Evaluation works as a reliable outcome measure for stroke patients when its 20 activity items are scored on a simplified three-category scale.
Therapists should use this revised scoring method to track changes in functional independence.
Key findings
01A three-category rating scale resolved measurement issues in the Japanese version of the ADL-focused Neurobehavioural Evaluation.
02The 20 activity of daily living items formed a single construct with high reliability for measuring change in stroke patients.
03Cultural adaptations made washing face and hands and using chopsticks easier, while transfer tasks became harder compared to the original English version.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat 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
Interrater reliability was not tested, so consistency between different therapists scoring the same patient is unknown. The sample included only people with stroke, so results may not apply to patients with other neurological conditions like dementia. The evaluation occurred many weeks after stroke onset, which may have reduced the need for the highest assistance category. A ceiling effect was present, meaning the scale may not distinguish high levels of function in independent patients.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the Japanese Association of Occupational Therapists.
The easy way to misread this
Do not use the original five-category rating scale for this Japanese version. The study found that a three-category scale was necessary to achieve valid measurement properties. Using the original categories may lead to inaccurate conclusions about patient progress.