Validity of the trunk assessment scale for spinal cord injury (TASS) and the trunk control test in individuals with spinal cord injury.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-03 DOI:10.1080/10790268.2023.2228583
Hiroki Sato, Kazuhiro Miyata, Kenichi Yoshikawa, Shuhei Chiba, Ryu Ishimoto, Masafumi Mizukami
{"title":"Validity of the trunk assessment scale for spinal cord injury (TASS) and the trunk control test in individuals with spinal cord injury.","authors":"Hiroki Sato, Kazuhiro Miyata, Kenichi Yoshikawa, Shuhei Chiba, Ryu Ishimoto, Masafumi Mizukami","doi":"10.1080/10790268.2023.2228583","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The Trunk Assessment Scale for Spinal Cord Injury (TASS) and the Trunk Control Test for individuals with a Spinal Cord Injury (TCT-SCI) are highly reliable assessment tools for evaluating the trunk function of individuals with SCIs. However, the potential differences in the validity of these two scales are unclear.<b>Objectives:</b> To evaluate the criterion validity of the TASS and the construct validity of the TASS and TCT-SCI.<b>Participants and Methods:</b> We evaluated 30 individuals with SCIs (age 63.8 ± 10.7 yrs, 17 with tetraplegia). To evaluate criterion validity, we calculated Spearman's rho between the TASS and the gold standard (the TCT-SCI). To determine construct validity, we used the following hypothesis testing approaches: (<i>i</i>) calculating Spearman's rho between each scale and the upper and lower extremity motor scores (UEMS, LEMS), the Walking Index for SCI-II (WISCI-II), and the motor score of the Functional Independence Measure (mFIM); and (<i>ii</i>) determining the cut-off point for identifying ambulators with SCIs (≥ 3 points on item 12 of Spinal Cord Independent Measure III) by a receiver operating characteristics analysis.<b>Results:</b> A moderate correlation was confirmed between the TASS and the TCT-SCI (<i>r</i> = 0.68). Construct validity was supported by six of the eight prior hypotheses. The cut-off points for identifying ambulators with SCIs were 26 points (TASS) and 18 points (TCT-SCI).<b>Conclusion:</b> Our results indicate that the contents of the TASS and the TCT-SCI might reflect the epidemiological characteristics of the populations in which they were developed.</p>","PeriodicalId":50044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"944-951"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11533264/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2023.2228583","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Trunk Assessment Scale for Spinal Cord Injury (TASS) and the Trunk Control Test for individuals with a Spinal Cord Injury (TCT-SCI) are highly reliable assessment tools for evaluating the trunk function of individuals with SCIs. However, the potential differences in the validity of these two scales are unclear.Objectives: To evaluate the criterion validity of the TASS and the construct validity of the TASS and TCT-SCI.Participants and Methods: We evaluated 30 individuals with SCIs (age 63.8 ± 10.7 yrs, 17 with tetraplegia). To evaluate criterion validity, we calculated Spearman's rho between the TASS and the gold standard (the TCT-SCI). To determine construct validity, we used the following hypothesis testing approaches: (i) calculating Spearman's rho between each scale and the upper and lower extremity motor scores (UEMS, LEMS), the Walking Index for SCI-II (WISCI-II), and the motor score of the Functional Independence Measure (mFIM); and (ii) determining the cut-off point for identifying ambulators with SCIs (≥ 3 points on item 12 of Spinal Cord Independent Measure III) by a receiver operating characteristics analysis.Results: A moderate correlation was confirmed between the TASS and the TCT-SCI (r = 0.68). Construct validity was supported by six of the eight prior hypotheses. The cut-off points for identifying ambulators with SCIs were 26 points (TASS) and 18 points (TCT-SCI).Conclusion: Our results indicate that the contents of the TASS and the TCT-SCI might reflect the epidemiological characteristics of the populations in which they were developed.

脊髓损伤躯干评估量表(TASS)和脊髓损伤患者躯干控制测试的有效性。
背景:脊髓损伤躯干评估量表(TASS)和脊髓损伤患者躯干控制测试(TCT-SCI)是评估脊髓损伤患者躯干功能的高度可靠的评估工具。然而,这两种量表在有效性方面的潜在差异尚不清楚:评估 TASS 的标准效度以及 TASS 和 TCT-SCI 的建构效度:我们对 30 名 SCI 患者(年龄为 63.8 ± 10.7 岁,其中 17 人四肢瘫痪)进行了评估。为了评估标准效度,我们计算了 TASS 与黄金标准(TCT-SCI)之间的 Spearman's rho。为了确定构造效度,我们采用了以下假设检验方法:(i) 计算每个量表与上下肢运动得分(UEMS、LEMS)、SCI-II 步行指数(WISCI-II)和功能独立性测量运动得分(mFIM)之间的 Spearman's rho;(ii) 通过接收器操作特性分析确定识别 SCI 行动自如者的临界点(脊髓独立测量 III 第 12 项得分≥ 3 分):结果:证实 TASS 与 TCT-SCI 之间存在中度相关性(r = 0.68)。八项先验假设中有六项支持结构效度。识别患有 SCI 的救护车司机的临界点分别为 26 点(TASS)和 18 点(TCT-SCI):结论:我们的研究结果表明,TASS 和 TCT-SCI 的内容可能反映了开发这两项测试的人群的流行病学特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine
Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
101
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: For more than three decades, The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine has reflected the evolution of the field of spinal cord medicine. From its inception as a newsletter for physicians striving to provide the best of care, JSCM has matured into an international journal that serves professionals from all disciplines—medicine, nursing, therapy, engineering, psychology and social work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信