Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2014
  • Online publication date: June 2014

Chapter 4 - Outcomes measurement: basic principles and applications in stroke rehabilitation

from Section 1 - Technology of neurorehabilitation: outcome measurement and diagnostic technology

References

1. Brook RH, Williams KN, Avery AD. Quality assurance today and tomorrow: forecast for the future. Ann Intern Med 1976; 85: 809–17.
2. Finch E, Brooks D, Stratford P, et al. Physical Rehabilitation Outcome Measures. A Guide to Enhanced Clinical Decision Making, 2nd edn. Hamilton, ON: B.C. Decker Inc., 2002.
3. Wood-Dauphinee S, Berg K, Daley K. Monitoring status and evaluating outcomes: an overview of rating scales for use with patients who have sustained a stroke. Top Geriat Rehabil 1994; 10: 22–41.
4. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice, 3rd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Health, 2009.
5. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Jaeschke R. How to develop and validate a new health-related quality of life instrument. In Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia, PA: Lippencott-Raven, 1996; 49–56.
6. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use, 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
7. Kirshner B, Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis 1985; 38: 27–36.
8. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2001.
9. Likert RA. A technique for the development of attitudes. Educ Psychol Measure 1952; 12: 313–15.
10. Cohen J. Coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Measure 1960; 20: 37–46.
11. Collins D. Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 229–38.
12. Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. Assessing health status and quality of life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 2002; 11: 193–205.
13. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297–334.
14. Cronbach LJ. The two disciplines of scientific psychology. Am Psychol 1957; 12: 671–84.
15. Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI, Opzoomer A, et al. Assessment of global function: the reintegration to normal living index. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1988; 69: 583–90.
16. Cardol M, Beelen A, van den Bos GA, et al. Responsiveness of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 1524–9.
17. Hays RD, Hadorn D. Responsiveness to change: an aspect of validity not a separate dimension. Qual Life Res 1992; 1: 73–5.
18. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL. Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther 1996; 76: 1109–23.
19. Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, et al. On assessing responsiveness of health related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 349–62.
20. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, et al. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 1207–17.
21. De Bruin AF, Diederiks JPM, De Witte LP, et al. Assessing the responsiveness of a functional status measure: the sickness impact profile versus the SIP68. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 529–40.
22. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 171–8.
23. Tuley MR, Mulrow C, McMahan A. Estimating and testing an index of responsiveness and the relationship of the index to power. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44, 417–21.
24. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 395–407.
25. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, et al. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 459–68.
26. Revicki D, Hays R, Cella D, et al. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 102–9.
27. Jorgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, et al. Recovery of walking function in stroke patients. The Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995; 76: 27–32.
28. Richards CL, Malouin F, Dumas F, et al. The relationship of gait speed to clinical measures of function and muscle activations during recovery post-stroke. Draganich L, Wells R, Bechtold J, eds. Proc NACOBII: 2nd N Am Congr Biomech, Chicago, 1992; 299–302.
29. Skilbeck CE, Wade DT, Hewer RL, et al. Recovery after stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 1983; 46: 5–8.
30. Ware JE, Keller SD. Interpreting general health measures. In Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia, PA: Lippencott-Raven, 1996; 445–60.
31. Lydick EG, Epstein RS. Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 221–6.
32. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum, 1988.
33. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu A, et al. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proc 2002; 77: 371–83.
34. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GD. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trial 1989; 10: 407–15.
35. Redelmeier DA, Guyatt GH, Goldstein RS. Assessing the minimal important difference in symptoms: a comparison of two techniques. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 1215–19.
36. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Using the standard error of measurement to identify important changes in the asthma quality of life questionnaire. Qual Life Res 2002; 11: 1–7.
37. Norman GR, Sridhar FG, Guyatt GH, et al. Relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 2001; 39: 1039–47.
38. Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI, et al. Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiother Can 1989; 41: 304–11.
39. Berg K, Maki B, Williams JI, et al. A comparison of clinical and laboratory measures of postural balance in an elderly population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1992; 73: 1073–80.
40. Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI, et al. Measuring balance in the elderly: validation of an instrument. Can J Public Health 1992; 83: S7–11.
41. Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI. The balance scale: reliability assessment with elderly residents and patients with acute stroke. Scand J Rehabil Med 1995; 27: 27–36.
42. Wood-Dauphinee S, Berg K, Bravo G, et al. The balance scale: responsiveness to clinically meaningful changes. Can J Rehabil 1997; 10: 35–50.
43. Ahmed S, Mayo NE, Higgins J, et al. The stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement (STREAM): a comparison with other measures used to evaluate effects of stroke and rehabilitation. Phys Ther 2003; 83: 617–30.
44. Daley K, Mayo N, Danys I, et al. The stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement (STREAM). Physiother Can 1997; 49: 269–76.
45. Daley K, Mayo N, Wood-Dauphinee S. Testing the reliability of the stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement (STREAM). Phys Ther 1999; 79: 9–23.
46. Malouin F, McFadyen B, Dion L, et al. A fluidity scale for evaluating the motor strategy of the rise-to-walk task after stroke. Clin Rehabil 2003; 17: 674–85.
47. Poissant L, Mayo N, Wood-Dauphinee S, et al. The development and preliminary validation of the preference-based stroke index (PBS). Health Qual Life Outcome 2003; 1: 43.
48. Bjorner JB, Ware JE. Using modern psychometric methods to measure health outcomes. Med Outcome Trust Monit 1998; 3: 12–16.
49. Fisher WP. Measurement-related problems in functional assessment. Am J Occup Ther 1993; 47: 331–8.
50. McHorney CA. Generic health measurement: past accomplishments and a measurement paradigm for the 21st century. Ann Intern Med 1997; 15: 743–50.
51. Revicki DA, Cella DF. Health status assessment for the twenty-first century: item response theory, item banking and computer testing. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 595–600.
52. Cleary PD. Future directions of quality of life research. Qual Life Med Rehabil 1996; 83: 1524–9.
53. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage Publications, 1991.
54. Hays RD. Item response theory models. In Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers PM, eds. Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998; 183–90.
55. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales : A practical Guide to their Development and Use, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
56. Cook DA, Beckman, TJ. Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. Am J Med 2006; 166: e7–166.e16.
57. Cella D, Gershon R, Lai J-S, et al. The future of outcomes measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment. Qual Life Res 2007; 16: 133–41.
58. Edelen MO, Reeve BB. Applying item response theory (IRT) modelling to questionnaire development, evaluation and refinement. Qual Life Res 2007; 16: 5–18.
59. Fayers PM. Applying item response theory and computer adapted testing: the challenges for health outcomes assessment Qual Life Res 2007; 16: 187–94.
60. Cella D, Lai J, Item Bank Investigators. Core item banking programs: past, present and future. In Quality of Life Newsletter, Fall. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2004; 5–8.
61. Hambleton RK, Jones RW. Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educ Measure Issue Pract 1993; 12: 38–47.
62. Reeve BB, Hayes RD, Chih-Hung Chang, Perfetto EM. Applying Item response theory to enhance health outcomes assessment. Qual Life Res 2007; 16: 1–3.
63. Finch L, Higgins J, Wood Dauphinee S, et al. Disability and rehabilitation. development of a measure of functioning for stroke recovery: the functional recovery measure. Disabil Rehabil 2008; 30: 577–92.
64. Finch LE, Higgins J, Wood Dauphinee S, et al. A measure of physical functioning to define stroke recovery at 3 months: preliminary results. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90: 1584–95.
65. Rasch G. Probablistic Models for some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1960.
66. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. International consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health related patient reported outcomes: results of the COSMIN study. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 737–45.
67. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status instruments: an international study. Qual Life Res 2010; 19: 539–49.
68. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Khol DL, et al. The COSIM checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its contents. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010; 10: 22
69. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Gibbons E, et al. Inter- rater agreement and reliability of the COSIM (COnsensus–based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) checklist. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010; 10: 82
70. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Stratford PW, et al. Protocol of the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; 6: 2
71. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Stratford PW, et al. Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments. Qual Life Res 2009; 18: 313–33
72. Salbach NM, Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, et al. A mobility intervention enhances walking competency in the first year post-stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2004; 5: 509–19.
73. Perry J, Garrett M, Gronley JK, et al. Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke 1995; 26: 982–9.
74. Robinett CS, Vondran MA. Functional ambulation velocity and distance requirements in rural and urban communities. A clinical report. Phys Ther 1988; 68: 1371–3.
75. Lerner-Frankiel MB, Vargus S, Brown MB, et al. Functional community ambulation: what are your criteria? Clin Manage 1986; 6: 12–15.
76. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott M. Motor Control: Theory and Practical Applications. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1995.
77. Wade DT. Measurement in Neurological Rehabilitation. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, Oxford University Press, 1992.
78. Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR, et al. Clinical gait assessment in the neurologically impaired. Reliability and meaningfulness. Phys Ther 1984; 64: 35–40.
79. Wade DT, Wood VA, Heller A, et al. Walking after stroke: measurement and recovery over the first 3 months. Scand J Rehabil Med 1987; 19: 25–30.
80. Evans MD, Goldie PA, Hill KD. Systematic and random error in repeated measurements of temporal and distance parameters of gait after stroke. Phys Ther 1997; 78: 725–9.
81. Bohannon RW. Strength of lower limb related to gait velocity and cadence in stroke patients. Physiother Can 1986; 38: 204–10.
82. Richards CL, Malouin F, Dumas F, et al. Gait velocity as an outcome measure of locomotor recovery after stroke. In Craik RL, Oatis C, eds. Gait Analysis: Theory and Applications. St-Louis, MO: Mosby, 1995; 355–64.
83. Brandstater ME, de Bruin H, Gowland C, et al. Hemiplegic gait: analysis of temporal variables. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1983; 64: 583–7.
84. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “up an go”. A test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991; 39: 142–9.
85. Lamontagne A, Malouin F, Richards CL. Locomotor task-specific measure of spasticity of plantarflexor muscles after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 1696–704.
86. Norton BJ, Bomze HA, Sahrmann SA, et al. Correlation between gait speed and spasticity at the knee. Phys Ther 1975; 55: 355–9.
87. Nakamura RA, Handa T, Watanabe S, et al. Walking cycle after stroke. Tohoku J Exp Med 1988; 154: 241–4.
88. Suzuki K, Nakamura R, Yamada Y, et al. Determinants of maximum walking speed in hemiparetic stroke patients. Tohoku J Exp Med 1990; 162: 337–44.
89. Salbach NM, Mayo NE, Higgins J, et al. Responsiveness and predictability of gait speed and other disability measures in acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 1204–12.
90. Richards CL, Malouin F, Bravo G, et al. The role of technology in task-oriented training in persons with sub-acute stroke: a randomized controlled trail. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2004; 18: 199–211.
91. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Rehabilitation of the hemiplegic patient: a clinical evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1954; 35: 359–62.
92. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaaskp L, Leyman I, et al. The post-stroke hemiplegia patient. I. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med 1975; 7: 13–31.
93. Richards CL, Malouin F, Dean C. Gait in stroke: assessment and rehabilitation. Clin Geriatric Med 1999; 15: 833–55.
94. Richards CL, Malouin F, Dumas F. Patterns of locomotor recovery after stroke. In Stein J, Harvey RL, Macko R, et al., eds. Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation. New York, NY: Demos Medical Publishing, 2009; 245–66.
95. Dean CM, Richards CL, Malouin F. Task-related circuit training improves performance of locomotor tasks in chronic stroke: a randomized, controlled pilot trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81: 409–17.
96. Tangeman P, Banaitis D, Williams A. Rehabilitation for chronic stroke patients: changes in functional performance. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1990; 71: 876–80.
97. Teixeira-Salmela LF, Olney SJ, Nadeau S, et al. Muscle strengthening and physical conditioning to reduce impairment and disability in chronic stroke survivors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 10: 1211–18.
98. Teixeira-Salmela LF, Nadeau S, McBride I, et al. Effects of muscle strengthening and physical conditioning training on temporal, kinematic and kinetic variables during gait in chronic stroke survivors. J Rehabil Med 2001; 33: 53–60.
99. Tilson JK, Sullivan KJ, Cen SY, et al. Meaningful gait speed improvement during the first 60 days poststroke: minimal clinically important difference. Phys Ther 2010; 90: 196–208.
100. Stratford P. Getting more from the literature: estimating the standard error of measurement from reliability studies. Physiother Can 2004; 56: 27–30.
101. Lang CE, Edwards DF, Birkenmeier RL, et al. Estimating minimal clinically important differences of upper extremity measures early after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 89: 1693–700.
102. Stevenson T. Detecting change in patients with stroke using the Berg balance scale. Aust J Physiother 2001; 7: 29–38.
103. Redelmeier DA, Bayoumi AM, Goldstein RS, et al. Interpreting small differences in functional status: the six minute walk test in chronic lung disease patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997; 155: 1278–83.
104. Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, et al. The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity and sensitivity to change. Stroke 1999; 30: 2131–40.
105. Iyer LV, Haley S, Watkins MP, et al. Establishing minimal clinically important difference scores on the pediatric evaluation of disability inventory for inpatient rehabilitation. Phys Ther 2003; 83: 888–98.
106. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003; 41: 582–92.
107. Malouin F, Richards CL. Assessment and training of locomotor function after stroke: evolving concepts. In Refshauge K, Ada L, Ellis E, eds. Science-Based Rehabilitation: Theory into Practice. Sydney, Australia: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2005; 185–222.
108. Engardt M, Olsson E. Body weight-bearing while rising and sitting down in patients with stroke. Scand J Rehabil Med 1992; 24: 67–74.
109. Malouin F, Belleville S, Desrosiers J, et al. Working memory and mental practice after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004a; 85: 177–83.
110. Malouin F, Richards CL, Belleville S, et al. Training mobility tasks after stroke with combined physical and mental practice: a feasibility study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2004; 18: 66–75.
111. Richards CL. EMG activity level comparisons in quadriceps and hamstrings in five dynamic activities. In Winter D, Wells R, Norman R, et al., eds. Biomechanics IX-A. Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics Publishers, 1985; 313–17.
112. Richards CL, Malouin F, Durand A, et al. Muscle activation level comparisons for determining functional demands of locomotor tasks. Semin Orthoped 1989; 4: 120–9.
113. Perron M, Malouin F, Moffet H. Assessing locomotor recovery after total hip arthroplasty with the timed stair test. Clin Rehabil 2003; 17: 780–6.
114. Moffet H, Richards CL, Malouin F. Load-carrying during stair ascent: a new functional test. Gait Posture 1993; 1: 35–44.
115. Moffet H, Richards CL, Malouin F, et al. Impact of knee extensor strength deficits on stair ascent performance in patients after medial meniscectomy. Scand J Rehabil Med 1993; 25: 63–71.
116. Dion L, Malouin F, Mcfadyen B, et al. Assessing mobility and locomotor coordination after stroke with the rise-to-walk task. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2003; 17: 83–92.
117. Macko RF, DeSouza CA, Tretter LD, et al. Treadmill aerobic exercise training reduces the energy expenditure and cardiovascular demands of hemiparetic gait in chronic stroke patients. A preliminary report. Stroke 1997; 28: 326–30.
118. Potempa K, Lopez M, Braun LT, et al. Physiological outcomes of aerobic exercise training in hemiparetic stroke patients. Stroke 1995; 26: 101–5.
119. Duncan P, Studenski S, Richards L, et al. Randomized clinical trial of therapeutic exercise in sub-acute stroke. Stroke 2003; 34: 2173–80.
120. Nilsson L, Carlsson J, Danielsson A, et al. Walking training of patients with hemiparesis at an early stage after stroke: a comparison of walking training on a treadmill with body weight support and walking training on the ground. Clin Rehabil 2001; 15: 515.
121. Visintin M, Barbeau H, Korner-Bitensky N, et al. A new approach to retrain gait in stroke patients through body weight support and treadmill stimulation. Stroke 1998; 29: 1122–8.
122. Dean CM, Richards CL, Malouin F. Walking speed over 10 metres overestimates locomotor capacity after stroke. Clin Rehabil 2001; 15: 415–21.
123. Shumway-Cook A, Baldwin M, Polissar NL, et al. Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults. Phys Ther 1997; 77: 812–19.
124. Whitney SL, Hudak MT, Marchetti GF. The dynamic gait index relates to self-reported fall history in individuals with vestibular dysfunction. J Vestib Res 2000; 10: 99–105.
125. Wrisley DM, Walker M, Echternach JL, et al. Reliability of the dynamic gait index in people with vestibular disorders. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84: 1528–33.
126. Shumway-Cook A, Patla AAE, Stewart A, et al. Environmental demands associated with community mobility in older adults with and without mobility disabilities. Phys Ther 2002; 82: 670–81.
127. Fougeyrollas P, Noreau L, Bergeron H, et al. Social consequences of long term impairments and disabilities: conceptual approach and assessment of handicap. Int J Rehabil Res 1998; 21: 127–41.
128. Fougeyrollas P, Noreau L. Life Habits Measure – Shortened Version (LIFE-H 3.0). Lac St-Charles, QC: CQCIDIH, 2001.
129. Desrosiers J, Malouin F, Bourbonnais D, et al. Arm and leg impairments and disabilities after stroke rehabilitation: relation to handicap. Clin Rehabil 2003; 17: 666–73.
130. Bowden MG, Balasubramanian CK, Behrman A, et al. Validation of a speed-based classification system using quantitative measures of walking performance post-stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2008; 22: 672–5.
131. Dietz V, Quintern J, Berger W. Electrophysiological studies of gait spasticity and rigidity: evidence that mechanical properties of muscles contribute to hypertonia. Brain 1981; 104: 431–9.
132. Knutsson E, Richards CL. Different types of disturbed motor control in gait of hemiparetic patients. Brain 1979; 102: 405–30.
133. Lamontagne A, Malouin F, Richards CL. Contribution of passive stiffness to ankle plantarflexor moment during gait after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81: 351–8.
134. Lamontagne A, Richards CL, Malouin F. Coactivation during gait as an adaptive behavior after stroke. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2000; 10: 407–15.
135. Lamontagne A, Malouin F, Richards CL, et al. Mechanisms of disturbed motor control in ankle weakness during gait after stroke. Gait Posture 2002; 15: 244–55.
136. Nadeau S, Duclos C, Bouyer L, et al. Guiding task-oriented gait training after stroke or spinal cord injury by means of a biomechanical gait analysis. Prog Brain Res 2011; 192: 161–80.
137. Olney SJ, Richards CL. Hemiplegic gait following stroke. Part I. Characteristics. Gait Posture 1996; 4: 136–48.
138. Olney SJ, Griffin MP, Monga TN, et al. Work and power in gait of stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1991; 72: 309–14.
139. Winter DA. The Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Gait: Normal, Elderly and Pathological, 2nd edn. Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo Press, 1991.
140. Olney SJ, Griffen MP, McBride ID. Temporal, kinematic and kinetic variables related to gait speed in subjects with hemiplegia: a regression approach. Phys Ther 1994; 74: 872–85.
141. Richards CL, Malouin F, Dumas F, et al. Recovery of ankle and hip power during walking after stroke. Can J Rehabil 1998; 11: 271–2.
142. Gérin-Lajoie M, Richards CL, McFadyen BJ. The negotiation of stationary and moving obstructions during walking: anticipatory locomotor adaptations and preservation of personal space. Motor Control 2005; 9: 242–69.
143. McFadyen BJ, Winter DA. Anticipatory locomotor adjustments during obstructed walking. Neurosci Res Commun 1991; 9: 37–44.
144. Said CM, Goldie PA, Patla AE, et al. Obstacle crossing in subjects with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80: 1054–9.
145. Said CM, Goldie PA, Patla AE, et al. Effect of stroke on step characteristics of obstacle crossing. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 1712–19.
146. Fung J, Richards CL, Malouin F, et al. A treadmill and motion coupled virtual reality system for gait training post-stroke. Cyberpsychol Behav 2006; 9: 157–62.
147. Kisony R, Levin M, Hughey L, et al. Cognitive load and dual-task performance during locomotion poststroke; a feasibility study using a functional virtual environment. Phys Ther 2010; 90: 252–60.
148. Plummer-D'Amato P, Altmann LPJ, Behrman AL, et al. Interference between cognition, double-limb support, and swing during gait in community-dwelling individuals poststroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2010; 24: 542–9.
149. Eliassen JC, Boespflug EL, Lamy M, et al. Brain-mapping techniques for evaluating poststroke recovery and rehabilitation: a review. Top Stroke Rehabil 2008; 15: 427–50.
150. Rossini PM, Altamura C, Ferreri F, et al. Neuroimaging experimental studies on brain plasticity in recovery from stroke. Eura Medicophys 2007; 43: 241–54.
151. Stinear C. Prediction of recovery of motor function after stroke. Lancet Neurol 2010; 9: 1228–32.
152. Escudero JV, Sancho J, Bautista D, et al. Prognostic value of motor evoked potential obtained by transcranial magnetic brain stimulation in motor function recovery in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Stroke 1998; 29: 1854–9.
153. Hendricks HT, Zwarts MJ, Plat EF, et al. Systematic review for the early prediction of motor and functional outcome after stroke by using motor-evoked potentials. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 1303–8.
154. Hendricks HT, Pasman JW, van Limbeek J, et al. Motor evoked potentials of the lower extremity in predicting motor recovery and ambulation after stroke: a cohort study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84: 1373–9.
155. Pizzi A, Carrai R, Falsini C, et al. Prognostic value of motor evoked potentials in motor function recovery of upper limb after stroke. J Rehabil Med 2009; 41: 654–60.
156. van Kuijk AA, Pasman JW, Hendricks HT, et al. Predicting hand motor recovery in severe stroke: the role of motor evoked potentials in relation to early clinical assessment. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009; 23: 45–51.
157. Piron L, Piccione F, Tonin P, et al. Clinical correlation between motor evoked potentials and gait recovery in poststroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 1874–8.
158. Stinear CM, Barber PA, Smale PR, et al. Functional potential in chronic stroke patients depends on corticospinal tract integrity. Brain 2007; 130: 170–80.
159. Trompetto C, Assini A, Buccolieri A, et al. Motor recovery following stroke: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Clin Neurophysiol 2000; 111: 1860–7.
160. Cho SH, Kim DG, Kim DS, et al. Motor outcome according to the integrity of the corticospinal tract determined by diffusion tensor tractography in the early stage of corona radiata infarct. Neurosci Lett 2007; 426: 123–7.
161. Lindenberg R, Renga V, Zhu LL, et al. Structural integrity of corticospinal motor fibers predicts motor impairment in chronic stroke. Neurology 2010; 74: 280–7.
162. Zhu LL, Lindenberg R, Alexander MP, et al. Lesion load of the corticospinal tract predicts motor impairment in chronic stroke. Stroke 2010; 41: 910–5.
163. Dawes H, Enzinger C, Johansen-Berg H, et al. Walking performance and its recovery in chronic stroke in relation to extent of lesion overlap with the descending motor tract. Exp Brain Res 2008; 186: 325–33.
164. Loubinoux I, Carel C, Pariente J, et al. Correlation between cerebral reorganization and motor recovery after subcortical infarcts. Neuroimage 2003; 20: 2126–80.
165. Foltys H, Krings T, Meister IG, et al. Motor representation in patients rapidly recovering after stroke: a functional magnetic resonance imaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Clin Neurophysiol 2003; 114: 2404–15.
166. Tombari D, Loubinoux I, Pariente J, et al. A longitudinal fMRI study: in recovering and then in clinically stable sub-cortical stroke patients. Neuroimage 2004; 23: 827–39.
167. Ward NS, Brown MM, Thompson AJ, et al. The influence of time after stroke on brain activations during a motor task. Ann Neurol 2004; 55: 829–34.
168. Dobkin BH, Firestine A, West M, et al. Ankle dorsiflexion as an fMRI paradigm to assay motor control for walking during rehabilitation. Neuroimage 2004; 23: 370–81.
169. Enzinger C, Johansen-Berg H, Dawes H, et al. Functional MRI correlates of lower limb function in stroke victims with gait impairment. Stroke 2008; 39: 1507–13.
170. Calautti C, Baron JC. Functional neuroimaging studies of motor recovery after stroke in adults. Stroke 2003; 34: 1553–66.
171. Carey JR, Kimberly TJ, Lewis SM, et al. Analysis of fMRI and finger tracking training in subjects with chronic stroke. Brain 2002; 125: 773–88.
172. Nelles G, Jentzen W, Jueptner M, et al. Arm training induced brain plasticity in stroke studied with serial positron emission tomography. Neuroimage 2002; 13: 1146–54.
173. Pariente J, Loubinoux I, Carel C, et al. Fluoxetine modulates motor performance and cerebral activation of patients recovering from stroke. Ann Neurol 2001; 50: 718–29.
174. Liepert J. TMS in stroke. In Paulus W, Tergau F, Rothwell JC, et al., eds. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation. Elsevier Science. Clin Neurophysiol 2003; 56: S368–80.
175. Traversa R, Cicinelli P, Bassi A, et al. Mapping of motor cortical reorganization after stroke: a brain stimulation study with focal magnetic pulses. Stroke 1997; 28: 110–17.
176. Liepert J, Bauder H, Miltmer HR, et al. Treatment-induced cortical reorganization after stroke in humans. Stroke 2000; 31: 1210–16.
177. Cramer SC, Nelles G, Benson RR, et al. A functional MRI study of subjects recovered from hemiparesis stroke. Stroke 1997; 28: 2518–27.
178. Calautti C, Leroy F, Guincestre JY, et al. Dynamics of motor network overactivation after striatocapsular stroke: a longitudinal PET study using a fixed-performance paradigm. Stroke 2001; 32: 2534–42.
179. Marshall RS, Perera GM, Lazar RM, et al. Evolution of cortical activation during recovery from corticospinal tract infarction. Stroke 2000; 31: 656–61.
180. Carroll TJ, Riek S, Carson RG. Reliability of the input–output properties of the cortico-spinal pathway obtained from transcranial magnetic and electrical stimulation. J Neurosci Method 2001; 112: 193–202.
181. Devanne H, Lavoie BA, Capaday C. Input–output properties and gain changes in the human corticospinal pathway. Exp Brain Res 1997; 114: 329–38.
Clinical guidelines for stroke management
Australian Stroke Foundation, Expert working group. Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management. 2010.Available from: http://www.strokefoundation.com.au/clinical-guidelines
Lindsay MP, Gubitz G, Bayley M, et al. Canadian Best Practice Recommendations for Stroke Care (Update 2010). On behalf of the Canadian Stroke Strategy Best Practices and Standards Writing Group. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Stroke Network, 2010. Available from: http://www.strokebestpractices.ca/
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. A national clinical guideline. Management of patients with stroke or TIA:assessment, investigation, immediate management and secondary prevention. 2008. Available from: www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines
Management of Stroke Rehabilitation Working Group. VA/DOD Clinical practice guideline for the management of stroke rehabilitation. J Rehabil Res Dev 2010; 47(9): 1–43.
Stroke Foundation of New Zealand and New Zealand Guidelines Group. Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management. Wellington, NZ: Stroke Foundation of New Zealand, 2010.

Clinical guidelines for stroke management

Australian Stroke Foundation, Expert working group. Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management. 2010.Available from: http://www.strokefoundation.com.au/clinical-guidelines
Lindsay MP, Gubitz G, Bayley M, et al. Canadian Best Practice Recommendations for Stroke Care (Update 2010). On behalf of the Canadian Stroke Strategy Best Practices and Standards Writing Group. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Stroke Network, 2010. Available from: http://www.strokebestpractices.ca/
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. A national clinical guideline. Management of patients with stroke or TIA:assessment, investigation, immediate management and secondary prevention. 2008. Available from: www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines
Management of Stroke Rehabilitation Working Group. VA/DOD Clinical practice guideline for the management of stroke rehabilitation. J Rehabil Res Dev 2010; 47(9): 1–43.
Stroke Foundation of New Zealand and New Zealand Guidelines Group. Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management. Wellington, NZ: Stroke Foundation of New Zealand, 2010.