Remote Delivery of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for the Upper Extremity: A Pilot Study to Assess Feasibility, Reliability, and Validity.
Veronica Rowe, Sarah Blanton, Dawn Aycock and 2 others
PMID 37312985WHAT IT FOUND
Remote administration of the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity test showed poor reliability and validity compared to in-person testing.
Total scores disagreed significantly between therapists and between remote and in-person methods, meaning current remote protocols cannot accurately replace standard assessment.
Key findings
01Interrater reliability between two therapists evaluating the same patient remotely was poor, with little agreement on total scores.
02Criterion validity was poor, with only 1 out of 12 participant total scores agreeing between remote and in-person administration.
03Specific items like elbow extension and shoulder internal rotation were least agreed upon, likely due to lighting and camera angle limitations.
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 study was not powered for hypothesis testing. The sample was small (12 dyads) and from a single urban area, limiting generalizability. Only one therapist performed the in-person assessment, so interrater reliability for in-person testing was not checked. The therapists had extensive experience with teleassessment, which may not reflect typical clinical skills. Lighting and camera positioning issues inherent to home environments likely contributed to scoring errors.
Declared interests
None reported.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume the remote Fugl-Meyer is valid because the median scores looked similar. The study found poor agreement between individual patient scores and between raters, meaning the remote test is not a reliable substitute for in-person assessment.