{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032497678737233054, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02460538532961931, 'mean_word_length': 5.139601139601139, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of the Responsiveness of the Long-Form and Simplified Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement: Group- and Individual-Level Analysis

Background The group-level responsiveness of the original, 30-item Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement measure (STREAM-30) is similar to that of the simplified STREAM (STREAM-15), even though the STREAM-30 has twice as many items as those of the STREAM-15. Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the responsiveness of the STREAM-30 and STREAM-15 at both group and individual levels in patients with stroke. For the latter level, the Rasch-calibrated 27-item STREAM (STREAM-27) was used because the individual-level indexes of the STREAM-30 could not be estimated. Design A repeated-measurements design was used. In total, 195 patients were assessed with the STREAM-30 at both admission and discharge. Methods The Rasch scores of the STREAM-27 and STREAM-15 were estimated from the participants' responses on the STREAM-30. We calculated the paired t-test value, effect size, and standardized response mean as the indexes of group-level responsiveness. The significance of change for each participant was estimated as the individual-level responsiveness index, and the paired t test and test of marginal homogeneity were used for individual-level comparisons between the STREAM-27 and STREAM-15. Results At the group level, the STREAM-30, STREAM-27, and STREAM-15 showed sufficient and comparable responsiveness. At the individual level, the STREAM-27 detected significantly more participants with significant improvement and fewer participants with no change or deterioration compared with the STREAM-15. Limitations Few patients with subacute stroke showed deterioration at discharge, so the abilities of the 2 measures to detect deterioration remain inconclusive. Conclusions The STREAM-27 detected more participants with significant recovery compared with the STREAM-15, although the group-level responsiveness of the 2 measures was the same. The STREAM-27 is recommended as an outcome measure to demonstrate the treatment effects of movement and mobility for patients with stroke.