RehabMeasures Instrument
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Movement Ability Measure

Movement Ability Measure

Last Updated

Purpose

The MAM is a potential measure of the effectiveness of physical therapy intervention through a self-report of perceived movement capability across diagnoses and ability levels (Allen, 2007b).

Acronym MAM

Area of Assessment

Aerobic Capacity
Coordination

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Not Free

Cost Description

Cost unknown

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Arthritis + Joint Conditions
  • Multiple Sclerosis
  • Pain Management

Populations

Orthopedic Surgery
Multiple Sclerosis
Mixed Populations

Key Descriptions

  • Perceived movement capability ranges from low (level 1) to high (level 6), with gradations of movement capability between levels.
  • Based on the Movement Continuum Theory, movement has 6 dimensions:
    1) Flexibility
    2) Strength (force exerted)
    3) Accuracy
    4) Speed
    5) Adaptability
    6) Endurance
  • The MAM asks for perceptions of current and preferred movement capabilities in these six dimensions.
  • The MAM has 24 items, with 4 assessing each of the 6 dimensions. Raw score ranges from 24-144 (higher scores indicating better perceived ability) (Allen, 2007b).

Number of Items

24

Equipment Required

  • Writing Instrument

Time to Administer

20 minutes

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Kirsten Potter PT, DPT, MS, NCS and the Stroke Edge Taskforce of the Neurology Section of the APTA.

ICF Domain

Body Structure
Body Function

Professional Association Recommendation

Recommendations for use of the instrument from the Neurology Section of the American Physical Therapy Association’s Multiple Sclerosis Taskforce (MSEDGE), Parkinson’s Taskforce (PD EDGE), Spinal Cord Injury Taskforce (PD EDGE), Stroke Taskforce (StrokEDGE), Traumatic Brain Injury Taskforce (TBI EDGE), and Vestibular Taskforce (Vestibular EDGE) are listed below. These recommendations were developed by a panel of research and clinical experts using a modified Delphi process.

For detailed information about how recommendations were made, please visit:  http://www.neuropt.org/go/healthcare-professionals/neurology-section-outcome-measures-recommendations

Abbreviations:

 

HR

Highly Recommend

R

Recommend

LS / UR

Reasonable to use, but limited study in target group  / Unable to Recommend

NR

Not Recommended

Recommendations based on level of care in which the assessment is taken:

 

Acute Care

Inpatient Rehabilitation

Skilled Nursing Facility

Outpatient

Rehabilitation

Home Health

MS EDGE

UR

UR

UR

UR

UR

Recommendations based on EDSS Classification:

 

EDSS 0.0 – 3.5

EDSS 4.0 – 5.5

EDSS 6.0 – 7.5

EDSS 8.0 – 9.5

MS EDGE

UR

UR

UR

UR

Recommendations for entry-level physical therapy education and use in research:

 

Students should learn to administer this tool? (Y/N)

Students should be exposed to tool? (Y/N)

Appropriate for use in intervention research studies? (Y/N)

Is additional research warranted for this tool (Y/N)

MS EDGE

No

No

No

Yes

Considerations

The individual scoring the MAM must be able to understand the abstract ideas of current and preferred movement capabilities.

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Mixed Populations

back to Populations

Test/Retest Reliability

Varied Subject Population: 

(Allen, 2007b; n = 34, mean age = 54 (range 19-78)) 

  • ICC = 0.92

Internal Consistency

Varied Subject Population:

(Allen, 2007b)

  • Internal consistency = 0.94

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Varied Subject Population: 

(Allen, 2007b) 

  • Correlation with the California Functional Evaluation measure: r = 0.76 
  • Evidence of concurrent validity of the MAM with self-reported health exists for subjects in the healthy and non-healthy groups (p<0.00005) 
  • Concurrent validity of the MAM with self-reported movement problems exists

Construct Validity

Varied Subject Population: 

(Allen, 2007b) 

  • Evidence of construct validity exists (item response theory analysis indicated that each movement ability threshold was distinct from one another and movement ability level thresholds were ordered as hypothesized)

Content Validity

Varied Subject Population:

(Allen, 2007b)

  • Evidence of content validity exists

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Varied Subject Population:

(Allen, 2007b)

  • Lack of ceiling or floor effects

Multiple Sclerosis

back to Populations

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent validity:

Multiple Sclerosis: 

(Allen & Wagner, 2011; n = 30) 

  • Average current ability correlation with: 
    • MS Walking Scale - 12 (MSWS - 12): r = -0.79
    • Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC): r = 0.77 
    • Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS): r = 0.68 
    • MSQOL-54 physical composite: r = 0.83 
    • MSQOL pain: r = 0.65 
    • MSPOL - physical function: r = 0.81 
    • report of falls: r = -0.56 
    • EDSS: r = -0.62 
    • Berg Balance Scale (BBS): r = 0.40 
  • Average gap in current and preferred movement ability correlation with: 
    • EDSS: r = 0.46 
    • MSWS-12: r = 0.45 
    • MSQOL – physical composite: r = -0.38 
    • MSQOL pain: r = -0.56 
  • Flexibility correlated significantly with handheld dynamometry, 4 Square Step Test, 25-Foot Timed Walk Test, 6 Minute Walk Test (6MWT), Dynamic Gait Index (DGI), and MSQOL-QOL subscale; r values ranged -0.46 – 0.70; flexibility did not correlate with spasticity measured by Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) 
  • Strength correlated significantly with handheld dynamometry, heel rises, and 6MWT, r values ranged 0.48-0.58 
  • Accuracy correlated significantly with Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA), 4 Square Step Test, 6MWT, and DGI, r values ranged 0.54 – 0.66 
  • Speed correlated significantly with handheld dynamometry, 25-Foot Timed Walk Test, 6MWT, and DGI, r values ranged from -0.37-0.66 
  • Adaptability correlated significantly with: 
    • 6MWT: r = 0.51 
    • DGI: r = 0.64 
  • Endurance correlated significantly with MSQOL – physical composite, handheld dynamometry, 6MWT, DGI, and MFIS, r values ranged from 0.56-0.84 
  • Moderate to strong correlations exist between the average current movement ability measured by the MAM and scores on the 6 separate dimensions; average gap between current and preferred movement abilities correlated with pain (r = -0.56) and a scale of current ability (r = 0.46)

Orthopedic Surgery

back to Populations

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Orthopedic Conditions:

(Allen, 2007c; n = 69)

  • MCID = 0.61

Responsiveness

Orthopedic Conditions:

(Allen, 2007c)

  • ES = 0.90
  • SRM = 0.93
  • Responsiveness index = 5.62

Bibliography

Allen, D. D. (2007). "Proposing 6 dimensions within the construct of movement in the Movement Continuum Theory." Physical Therapy 87(7): 888-898.

Allen, D. D. (2007). "Responsiveness of the movement ability measure: a self-report instrument proposed for assessing the effectiveness of physical therapy intervention." Phys Ther 87(7): 917-924. Find it on PubMed

Allen, D. D. (2007). "Validity and reliability of the movement ability measure: a self-report instrument proposed for assessing movement across diagnoses and ability levels." Phys Ther 87(7): 899-916. Find it on PubMed

Allen, D. D. and Cott, C. A. (2010). "Evaluating rehabilitation outcomes from the client's perspective by identifying the gap between current and preferred movement ability." Disability & Rehabilitation 32(6): 452-461.

Allen, D. D. and Wagner, J. M. (2011). "Assessing the gap between current movement ability and preferred movement ability as a measure of disability." Physical Therapy 91(12): 1789-1803.

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Oct 15, 2024

Buss-Durkee Hostility Inve...

read more

updated Aug 28, 2024

NIH Toolbox for Assessment...

read more

updated Aug 10, 2024

Home and Community Environ...

read more