A working model of stroke recovery from rehabilitation robotics practitioners

Table 1 Change during Acute Rehabilitation & Follow-Up: Lesion Site Classification and Clinical Scales

Group	FMA (out of 66) Mean ± sem		MP (Out of 20) Mean ± sem		MS1 (Out of 40) Mean ± sem
	Δ1	Δ2 *	Δ1	Δ2	Δ1	Δ2 *
CS(n = 5)	9.3 ± 5.4	25.0 ± 7.5	2.1 ± 1.2	6.1 ± 1.3	1.0 ± 3.3	16.0 ± 16.6
CS+(n = 6)	10.7 ± 2.8	-1.3 ± 2.4	4.3 ± 1.6	2.8 ± 2.2	7.7 ± 2.8	4.2 ± 1.8
Effect Size r	r = 0.15 small	r = 2.45 large	r = 0.60 large	r = 0.77 large	r = 0.94 large	r = 1.80 large

FMA – the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, MP the Medical Research Council Motor Power, MS1 the Motor Status Score for the shoulder and elbow. Δ1: score change from rehabilitation hospital admission to discharge; Δ2: score change from discharge to follow up; with p < 0.05 for statistical significance (*). Both parametric and nonparametric analyses were performed, and each yielded similar results. For conciseness, we have chosen to report our parametric analyses of the change scores here. Analyses of variance was used to compare changes during sub-acute phase (Δ1) and from hospital discharge to 3-years follow-up (Δ2) among the two lesion type groups. Nonparametric Mann-Whitney Tests compared changes in FMA, MP, and MSS scores for Δ1 and Δ2. StatView (SAS Institute, Inc., Version 5.0.1) was used for data analysis. The strength, or magnitude, of our findings was determined by calculating the effect size r. According to Cohen, r = .10 is a small treatment effect, r = .30 or greater represents a moderate effect, and r = .50 or greater is a large effect.

ISSN: 1743-0003