Article

Intervention studies describe outcomes as meas-uring specific domains
of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).
However, the same measure may be described by different authors as assessing
different domains, resulting in considerable confusion and inconsistent reporting
of outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To systematically link the scored items from the
Melbourne Assessment of Unilateral Upper Limb Function, Quality of Upper
Extremity Skills Test and Assisting Hand Assessment to domain(s) of the ICF.
METHODS: The meaningful concept for each scored item was defined. Using ICF
linking rules, the concepts were assigned ICF codes to determine the outcome's
overall domain of measurement. RESULTS: The Melbourne Assessment predominantly
evaluates concepts in the body function domain. Coding of the Quality of Upper
Extremity Skills Test indicated that dissociated movement, weight-bearing and
protective extension predominantly measure concepts in the body function domain.
Grasp was the only domain where concepts were coded in both the body function and
activity domains. The Assisting Hand Assessment was the only measure where the
majority of items assessed concepts in the activity domain. CONCLUSION: Measures
of upper limb function can be categorized according to ICF domains. These
findings should resolve confusion surrounding the classification of these
measures and provide a reference for reporting the impact of intervention.

Langue : ANGLAIS