Proposal and validation of a clinical trunk control test in individuals with spinal cord injury

47Citations
Citations of this article
138Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Study design:One of the problems that arise in spinal cord injury ( SCI) is alteration in trunk control. Despite the need for standardized scales, these do not exist for evaluating trunk control in SCI.Objective:To propose and validate a trunk control test in individuals with SCI.Setting:National Institute of Rehabilitation, Mexico.Methods:The test was developed and later evaluated for reliability and criteria, content, and construct validity.Results:We carried out 531 tests on 177 patients and found high inter-and intra-rater reliability. In terms of criterion validity, analysis of variance demonstrated a statistically significant difference in the test score of patients with adequate or inadequate trunk control according to the assessment of a group of experts. A receiver operating characteristic curve was plotted for optimizing the instrument's cutoff point, which was determined at 13 points, with a sensitivity of 98% and a specificity of 92.2%. With regard to construct validity, the correlation between the proposed test and the spinal cord independence measure ( SCIM) was 0.873 ( P=0.001) and that with the evolution time was 0.437 ( P=0.001). For testing the hypothesis with qualitative variables, the Kruskal-Wallis test was performed, which resulted in a statistically significant difference between the scores in the proposed scale of each group defined by these variables. Conclusion:It was proven experimentally that the proposed trunk control test is valid and reliable. Furthermore, the test can be used for all patients with SCI despite the type and level of injury. © 2014 International Spinal Cord Society.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Quinzaños, J., Villa, A. R., Flores, A. A., & Pérez, R. (2014). Proposal and validation of a clinical trunk control test in individuals with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 52(6), 449–454. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2014.34

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free