WMFTWolf Motor Function Test
References in periodicals archive ?
For the study outcomes, a mixed within-between-groups ANOVA was conducted to assess the effect of four different interventions (control, mCIMT, 300 repetitions, and 600 repetitions) on FM, MAL how well, MAL amount of use, WMFT, and UPSET.
The FA of WMFT items except flipping cards and total SIS hand functions as well as carrying heavy objects (p = 0.01), turning a doorknob (p = 0.03), and picking up a dime (p = 0.007) of SIS hand functions demonstrated significant differences within the experimental group.
As we obtained a skewed distribution for WMFT performance times, we used the WMFT mean performance rate data.
Changes in the FMA score and the WMFT log performance time (WMFT-lpt) as a result of the treatment were examined using signed Wilcoxon's rank sum test, respectively.
Once the participant was determined to have achieved a stable baseline (i.e., less than one second deviation on the timed WMFT scores on three consecutive measurements), the intervention commenced.
No significant within-subject or multiple comparison effects were found on the WMFT and the DASH (Table).
The psychometric properties of the WMFT are not known at this time since the modified version was used.
Changes from baseline in impaired hand FMA/UE, WMFT, and SIS domain scores were compared to the corresponding estimated values for the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in chronic stroke for these measures [58-62].
Paretic arm motor function will be evaluated on a 3-item abbreviated version of the WMFT. Each assessment will be performed at each time point (Figure 1).
The results indicated that the progress was statistically significant in FMA, TEMPA, WMFT, BBT, and JAMAR (all P < 0.05), with the progression rate of the scores being 34%, 12%, 18%, 24%, and 34%, respectively.
Finally, we present outcome measures from three clinical case studies by means of Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment (FMA) and Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) scores.