Abstract
A national survey assessed practitioners’ perceptions of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment’s acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and adoption. Results showed it was acceptable, appropriate, and feasible, and they were willing to use standardized outcome measures.
Primary Author and Speaker: Mequeil L. Howard
Contributing Authors: Lauren Wengerd, Brittany Hand, Lisa Juckett
Only 25% of OTPs report using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the Upper Extremity, a standardized outcome, in stroke rehabilitation. However, outcome measures are crucial for monitoring client progress and demonstrating rehabilitation need. The purpose of this study was to examine how perceived acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the Fugl-Meyer were associated with its use by occupational therapy practitioners (OTPs). A cross-sectional national survey was conducted with OTPs recruited from six OT state associations. OTPs were eligible to participate if they were actively employed in stroke rehabilitation. The survey assessed practitioners’ perceptions of the Fugl-Meyer across four measures: 1) Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), 2) Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), 3) Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM), and 4) Evidence Based Practice Attitudes Scale (EBPAS). The EBPAS can be further classified through four dimensions (requirement, appeal, openness, and divergence). Descriptive statistics, medians, and interquartile ranges were calculated for each measure. Participants included 102 OTPs who identified the Fugl-Meyer as acceptable, appropriate, and feasible with a median score of 4 (IQR 3-4) across all measures (AIM, IAM, FIM). OTPs indicated that they were open (median=2.5. IQR=2-3) ’to a moderate extent’ to trying a new standardized outcome measure. OTPs openness was significantly positively correlated with the AIM (r(100) =0.35, p<.001), IAM (r(100) =0.29, p<.01), and FIM (r(100) =0.31, p<.01). Although the Fugl-Meyer was acceptable, appropriate, and feasible for stroke rehabilitation, OTPs openness to using standardized outcome measures needs to be further examined. Impact Statement: This study demonstrates that OTPs are willing to implement standardized outcome measures; however, OTPs openness and perceptions of standardized outcome measures need to be intentionally addressed by managers, supervisors, and educators.
Lin, S., Bosch, P., Rowe, V., Fasoli, S., & Langan, J. (2019). Use of Standardized Assessments and Online Resources in Stroke Rehabilitation. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy, 7(4), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.15453/2168-6408.1570
Fugl-Meyer, A. R., Jääskö, L., Leyman, I., Olsson, S., & Steglind, S. (1975). The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 7(1), 13–31.
Juckett, L. A., Banhos, M., Howard, M. L., Walters, T., Horn, L. M., Kinney, A. R., & Wengerd, L. R. (2024). Bundling implementation strategies supports outcome measure adoption in stroke rehabilitation: Preliminary findings. Implementation Science Communications, 5, 102. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00643-3