Arm Motor Ability Test

Subacute Stroke: (Kopp et al, 1997; n = 33 subacute stroke inpatients with moderate to mild upper extremity motor deficit; median age = 66 years; sex = 12 females; median Motricity Index Arm Score = 89; median chronicity = 43 days; 13-item AMAT)

Chronic Stroke: (Fulk et al., 2017; n = 146, age = 57.1 (10.96) years, age range = 29-83; chronic stroke survivors with stable, mild to moderate upper extremity (UE) hemiparesis; mean time since stroke onset for participants in sample = 59.37 (63.22) months; 88 participants with hemiparesis affecting their right UEs; 82 participants with hemiparesis affecting their dominant UEs; 13-item AMAT)

• MDC in AMAT Based on Therapists’ Perception of Change
  • Grasp: 0.44
  • Release: 0.42
  • Ability to move affected arm and hand: 0.42
  • Ability to perform Canadian Occupational Performance Measure tasks:   0.42
  • Overall arm and hand function: 0.42
• MDC in AMAT Based on Participants’ Perception of Change
  • Grasp: 0.44
  • Release: 0.42
  • Ability to move affected arm and hand: 0.40
  • Ability to perform Canadian Occupational Performance Measure tasks:   0.40
  • Overall arm and hand function: 0.40

Chronic Stroke: (Fulk et al., 2017; 13-item AMAT)

• MCID in AMAT Based on Therapists’ Perception of Change
  • Grasp: 0.34
  • Release: 0.42
  • Ability to move affected arm and hand: 0.40
  • Ability to perform Canadian Occupational Performance Measure tasks:   0.35
  • Overall arm and hand function: 0.42
• MCID in AMAT Based on Participants’ Perception of Change
  • Grasp: 0.29
  • Release: 0.31
  • Ability to move affected arm and hand: 0.29
  • Ability to perform Canadian Occupational Performance Measure tasks:   0.30
  • Overall arm and hand function: 0.40

Stroke: (O’Dell et al., 2013; n = 32 community dwelling stroke survivors prior to upper extremity robotic treatment; mean age = 56 (12.4) years; age range = 35-85; gender = 72% male; ethnicity = 56% white, 28% black, 16% other; handedness = 88% right-handed; mean years post-stroke = 4.1 (4.5; range = 0.8-25.2); 9-item AMAT (10-item ARAT minus “light switch/door” item and its three associated tasks))

• Low impairment (n = 10, median normalized AMAT score = 35)
• Middle impairment (n = 8, median normalized AMAT score = 23.5)
• High impairment (n = 14, median normalized AMAT score = 17.5)

Chronic Stroke: (Fulk et al., 2017; 13-item AMAT)

• Mean score for all participants on AMAT = 3.0 (0.68)

Subacute Stroke: (Kopp et al, 1997; 13-item AMAT)

• Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.99 for performance time, 0.93 for functional ability, and 0.94 for quality of movement)

Subacute Stroke: (Kopp et al, 1997; 13-item AMAT)

• Excellent interrater reliability (ICC = 0.97 - 0.99)

Chronic Stroke: (Daley et al., 2005; n = 12; age range = 21-62 years; male = 9; 1-4 years post-stroke; chronic stroke survivors (>12 months) stratified by Fugl-Meyer score and randomly assigned to robotics & motor learning (ROB-ML) or functional neuromuscular stimulation & motor learning (FNS-ML) groups; 13-item AMAT)   

• Excellent interrater reliability (ICC = 0.82 for shoulder/elbow tasks; ICC = 0.96 for wrist/hand tasks)
• Excellent intrarater reliability (ICC = 0.94 for shoulder/elbow tasks; ICC = 0.97 for wrist/hand tasks)

Chronic Stroke: (Persch et al., 2018; n = 67; mean age = 59.8 (12.8); male = 40; right-sided lesion = 92.5%; ischemic stroke = 44, hemorrhagic = 15, unknown = 8; Ohio Modified Arm-Motor Ability Test (OMAAT)-9 tasks with total of 20 task components and single rating scale to evaluate ability to carry out functional activities)

• Excellent: Cronbach's alpha = 0.97*
• Excellent: Ordinal alpha = 0.98*
• Excellent: Gugiu's bootstrap reliability = 0.97*

Stroke: (O’Dell et al., 2013; 9-item AMAT)

• Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93*
• Excellent: Person Separation Index = 0.86 with inclusion of extreme scores
• Excellent: Person Separation Index = 0.88 with exclusion of extreme scores

*Scores higher than 0.9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions

Concurrent validity:

Subacute Stroke: (Kopp et al., 1997; 13-item AMAT)

• Adequate to excellent concurrent validity with the Motricity-Index-Arm (r = 0.45 for performance time, r = 0.61 for functional ability, and r = 0.60 for quality of movement)

Chronic Stroke: (Chae et al, 2003; n = 30; age ≥ 18; mean age = 51 (15.2); male = 60%; stroke onset to study entry > 6 months; mean time from stroke onset to study entry = 39.5 (32.9) months; chronic stroke survivors recruited from outpatient stroke clinic with ability to follow 3-stage commands; 13-item AMAT) 

• Excellent concurrent validity with the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) total (r = -0.92 for performance time, r = 0.94 for functional ability, and r = 0.94 for quality of movement)

Convergent validity:

Chronic Stroke: (Persch et al., 2018; OMAAT)

• Excellent convergent validity between OMAAT and ARAT total scores (r = 0.90, p < 0.0001)

   

Stroke: (O’Dell et al., 2013; 9-item AMAT)

• Excellent correlation with Wolf Motor Function Test, FMA, and ARAT (0.78-0.79)
• Excellent correlation with FMA wrist/hand subscore (0.74)
• Excellent correlation with FMA shoulder/elbow subscore (0.66)
• Adequate correlation with SIS hand subscore (0.40)
• Poor correlation with SIS communication subscore (-0.16)

Chronic Stroke: (Daley et al., 2005; 13-item AMAT)

• Excellent correlation with FIM self-care tasks (r = 0.60)
• Adequate correlation with SIS hand scale (r = 0.59)
• Poor correlation with FIM communication tasks (r = 0.09)

O’Dell et al. (2013, 9-item AMAT) found consistencies between the AMAT-9 results and the Rasch model expectations, even with the small number of participants in the study (p. 9).

Chronic Stroke: (Chae et al, 2003; 13-item AMAT)

• The AMAT time of performance exhibited significant ceiling and floor effects with respect to the Fugl-Meyer Assessment. This result suggests that the AMAT time of performance is not able to discriminate between varying levels of motor impairments.