The Czech Fugl–Meyer assessment for post-stroke sensorimotor function: translation and cross-cultural adaptation and validation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v57.43010Keywords:
stroke, cross-cultural comparison, sensorimotor assessment, translation, lower-extremity, upper extremity, validationAbstract
Objective: To ensure wider use of the internationally recommended Fugl–Meyer Assessment (FMA) of sensorimotor function for people with stroke, official translations of the scale are needed. This study aimed to perform a translation and cross-cultural adaptation/validation of the FMA into the Czech language.
Design: Translation and cross-cultural adaptation/validation.
Subjects/Patients: Five clinical experts and 1 external expert participated as reviewers; 11 individuals with stroke in the early subacute phase were included in the pilot testing.
Methods: A standardized process using forward–backward translations, expert panel reviews, and pilot testing between and within the raters (inter- and intra-rater reliability) were employed to ensure conceptual, semantic, and operational validity of the new Czech FMA. Agreement between raters was assessed in 11 individuals with stroke on 2 consecutive days at University Hospital Olomouc by using Svensson’s rank-based statistics.
Results: Percentage of agreement between and within raters ranged between 70–100% and 55–100%, respectively. Systematic disagreements, found in 7 out of 96 FMA items, were discussed and revised in the final version.
Conclusion: The Czech FMA offers a more unified and standardized assessment of sensorimotor impairment in clinical and research settings. This will improve stroke rehabilitation care and allow for wider international collaboration.
Downloads
References
Feigin VL, Brainin M, Norrving B, et al. World Stroke Organization: Global Stroke Fact Sheet 2025. Int J Stroke 2025; 20: 132–144.
https://doi.org/10.1177/17474930241308142 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17474930241308142
Gialanella B, Santoro R, Ferlucci C. Predicting outcome after stroke: the role of basic activities of daily living predicting outcome after stroke. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2013; 49: 629–637.
Bryndziar T, Šedová P, Mikulík R. Stroke incidence in Europe: a systematic review. Cesk Slov Neurol N 2017; 80: 180–189.
https://doi.org/10.14735/amcsnn2017180 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14735/amcsnn2017180
Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic (ÚZIS). Zdravotnická ročenka 2021 [retrieved 2023 June 23]. Available from: https://www.uzis.cz/index.php?pg=aktuality&aid=8619
Thayabaranathan T, Kim J, Cadilhac DA, Thrift AG, Donnan GA, Howard G, et al. Global stroke statistics 2022. Int J Stroke 2022; 17: 946–956.
https://doi.org/10.1177/17474930221123175 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17474930221123175
Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol 2009; 8: 741–754.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70150-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70150-4
Alt Murphy M, Danielsson A, Sunnerhagen KS. Letter by Murphy et al. regarding article, “Fugl–Meyer assessment of sensorimotor function after stroke: standardized training procedure for clinical practice and clinical trials”. Stroke 2011; 42: e402.
https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.619304 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.619304
Burridge J, Alt Murphy M, Buurke J, Feys P, Keller T, Klamroth-Marganska V, et al. A systematic review of international clinical guidelines for rehabilitation of people with neurological conditions: what recommendations are made for upper limb assessment? Front Neurol 2019; 10: 567.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00567 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00567
Santisteban L, Térémetz M, Bleton JP, Baron JC, Maier MA, Lindberg PG. Upper limb outcome measures used in stroke rehabilitation studies: a systematic literature review. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0154792.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154792 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154792
Hernández ED, Galeano CP, Barbosa NE, Forero SM, Nordin Å, Sunnerhagen KS, et al. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of Fugl–Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity in stroke. J Rehabil Med 2019; 51: 652–659.
https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2590 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2590
Hernández ED, Forero SM, Galeano CP, Barbosa NE, Sunnerhagen KS, Alt Murphy M. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of Fugl–Meyer Assessment of Lower Extremity early after stroke. Braz J Phys Ther 2020; 25: 709–718.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjpt.2020.12.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjpt.2020.12.002
See J, Dodakian L, Chou C, Chan V, McKenzie A, Reinkensmeyer DJ, et al. A standardized approach to the Fugl–Meyer assessment and its implications for clinical trials. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2013; 27: 732–741.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968313491000 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968313491000
Amano S, Umeji A, Uchita A, Hashimoto Y, Takebayashi T, Kanata Y, et al. Reliability of remote evaluation for the Fugl–Meyer assessment and the action research arm test in hemiparetic patients after stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil 2018; 25: 43–47.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10749357.2018.1484987 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10749357.2018.1484987
International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.
Kwakkel G, Lannin NA, Borschmann K, English C, Ali M, Churilov L, et al. Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2017; 31: 784–792.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968317732662 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968317732662
Lee HC, Kuo FL, Lin YN, Liou TH, Lin JC, Huang SW. Effects of robot-assisted rehabilitation on hand function of people with stroke: a randomized, crossover-controlled, assessor-blinded study. Am J Occup Ther 2021; 75: 7501205020p1–7501205020p11.
https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2021.038232 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2021.038232
Hernandez A, Bubyr L, Archambault PS, Higgins J, Levin MF, Kairy D. Virtual reality-based rehabilitation as a feasible and engaging tool for the management of chronic poststroke upper-extremity function recovery: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Serious Games 2022; 10: e37506.
https://doi.org/10.2196/37506 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/37506
Park J, Lee N, Cho M, Kim D, Yang Y. Effects of mental practice on stroke patients’ upper extremity function and daily activity performance. J Phys Ther Sci 2015; 27: 1075–1077.
https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.27.1075 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.27.1075
Rocha LSO, Gama GCB, Rocha RSB, Rocha LB, Dias CP, Santos LLS, et al. Constraint induced movement therapy increases functionality and quality of life after stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2021; 30: 105774.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2021.105774 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2021.105774
Hara T, Niimi M, Yamada N, Shimamoto Y, Masuda G, Hara H, et al. Prognosis prediction of the effect of botulinum toxin therapy and intensive rehabilitation on the upper arm function in post-stroke patients using hierarchical cluster analysis. Disabil Rehabil 2022; 44: 6815–6823.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2021.1977394 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2021.1977394
Fugl–Meyer AR, Jääskö L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med 1975; 7: 13–31.
https://doi.org/10.2340/1650197771331 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/1650197771331
Sullivan JE, Crowner BE, Kluding PM, Nichols D, Rose DK, Yoshida R, et al. Outcome measures for individuals with stroke: process and recommendations from the American Physical Therapy Association neurology section task force. Phys Ther 2013; 93: 1383–1396.
https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20120492 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20120492
Cruchinho P, López-Franco MD, Capelas ML, Almeida S, Bennett PM, Miranda da Silva M, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of measurement instruments: a practical guideline for novice researchers. J Multidiscip Healthc 2024; 17: 2701–2728.
https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S419714 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S419714
Busk H, Alt Murphy M, Korsman R, Skou ST, Wienecke T. Cross-cultural translation and adaptation of the Danish version of the Fugl–Meyer assessment for post stroke sensorimotor function. Disabil Rehabil 2022; 44: 4888–4895.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2021.1919215 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2021.1919215
Cecchi F, Carrabba C, Bertolucci F, Castagnoli C, Falsini C, Gnetti B, et al. Transcultural translation and validation of Fugl–Meyer assessment to Italian. Disabil Rehabil 2021; 43: 3717–3722.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2020.1746844 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2020.1746844
Kim TL, Hwang SH, Lee WJ, Hwang JW, Cho I, Kim EH, et al. The Korean version of the Fugl–Meyer Assessment: reliability and validity evaluation. Ann Rehabil Med 2021; 45: 83–98.
https://doi.org/10.5535/arm.20225 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5535/arm.20225
Onose G, Anghelescu A, Ionescu A, Tataranu LG, Spînu A, Bumbea AM, et al. Translation of the Fugl–Meyer assessment into Romanian: transcultural and semantic-linguistic adaptations and clinical validation. Front Neurol 2023; 13: 1022546.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2022.1022546 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2022.1022546
Barbosa NE, Forero SM, Galeano CP, Hernández ED, Landinez NS, Sunnerhagen KS, et al. Translation and cultural validation of clinical observational scales: the Fugl–Meyer assessment for post stroke sensorimotor function in Colombian Spanish. Disabil Rehabil 2019; 41: 2317–2323.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1464604 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1464604
Ikram M, Rehman S, Sunnerhagen K, Alt Murphy M. Urdu translation and cross-cultural validation of the Fugl–Meyer assessment in people with stroke. Disabil Rehabil 2022; 44: 8048–8053.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2021.2003449 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2021.2003449
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000; 25: 3186–3191.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract 2011; 17: 268–274.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
Svensson E. Different ranking approaches defining association and agreement measures of paired ordinal data. Stat Med 2012; 31: 3104–3117.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5382 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5382
Svensson E, Holm S. Separation of systematic and random differences in ordinal rating scales. Stat Med 1994; 13: 2437–2453.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780132308 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780132308
Duncan Millar J, van Wijck F, Pollock A, Ali M. Outcome measures in post-stroke arm rehabilitation trials: do existing measures capture outcomes that are important to stroke survivors, carers, and clinicians? Clin Rehabil 2019; 33: 737–749.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215518823248 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215518823248
Kim H, Her J, Ko J, Park DS, Woo JH, You Y, et al. Reliability, concurrent validity, and responsiveness of the Fugl–Meyer Assessment (FMA) for hemiplegic patients. J Phys Ther Sci 2012; 24: 893–899.
https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.24.893 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.24.893
Gladstone DJ, Danells CJ, Black SE. The Fugl–Meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2002; 16: 232–240.
https://doi.org/10.1177/154596802401105171 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/154596802401105171
Lee HH, Kim DY, Sohn MK, Shin YI, Oh GJ, Lee YS, et al. Revisiting the proportional recovery model in view of the ceiling effect of Fugl–Meyer Assessment. Stroke 2021; 52: 3167–3175.
https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.032409 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.032409
Hawe RL, Scott SH, Dukelow SP. Taking proportional out of stroke recovery. Stroke 2019; 50: 204–211.
https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.023006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.023006
Kristersson T, Persson HC, Alt Murphy M. Evaluation of a short assessment for upper extremity activity capacity early after stroke. J Rehabil Med 2019; 51: 257–263.
https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2534 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2534
Sullivan KJ, Tilson JK, Cen SY, Rose DK, Hershberg J, Correa A, et al. Fugl–Meyer assessment of sensorimotor function after stroke: standardized training procedure for clinical practice and clinical trials. Stroke 2011; 42: 427–432.
https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.592766 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.592766
Boyd LA, Hayward KS, Ward NS, Stinear CM, Rosso C, Fisher RJ, et al. Biomarkers of stroke recovery: consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. Int J Stroke 2017; 12: 480–493.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493017714176 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493017714176
Woytowicz EJ, Rietschel JC, Goodman RN, Conroy SS, Sorkin JD, Whitall J, et al. Determining levels of upper extremity movement impairment by applying a cluster analysis to the Fugl–Meyer Assessment of the upper extremity in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2017; 98: 456–462.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2016.06.023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2016.06.023
Huynh BP, DiCarlo JA, Vora I, Ranford J, Gochyyev P, Lin DJ, et al. Sensitivity to change and responsiveness of the upper extremity Fugl–Meyer assessment in individuals with moderate to severe acute stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2023; 37: 545–553.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15459683231186985 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15459683231186985
Hiragami S, Inoue Y, Harada K. Minimal clinically important difference for the Fugl–Meyer assessment of the upper extremity in convalescent stroke patients with moderate to severe hemiparesis. J Phys Ther Sci 2019; 31: 917–921.
https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.31.917 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.31.917
Pandian S, Arya KN, Kumar D. Minimal clinically important difference of the lower-extremity Fugl–Meyer assessment in chronic-stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil 2016; 23: 233–239.
https://doi.org/10.1179/1945511915Y.0000000003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1179/1945511915Y.0000000003
Prabhakaran S, Zarahn E, Riley C, Speizer A, Chong JY, Lazar RM, et al. Inter-individual variability in the capacity for motor recovery after ischemic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2008; 22: 64–71.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968307305302 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968307305302
Winters C, van Wegen EE, Daffertshofer A, Kwakkel G. Generalizability of the proportional recovery model for the upper extremity after an ischemic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2015; 29: 614–622.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968314562115 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968314562115
Smith MC, Byblow WD, Barber PA, Stinear CM. Proportional recovery from lower limb motor impairment after stroke. Stroke 2017; 48: 1400–1403.
https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.016478 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.016478
Ghaziani E, Couppé C, Siersma V, Christensen H, Magnusson SP, Sunnerhagen KS, et al. Easily conducted tests during the first week post-stroke can aid the prediction of arm functioning at 6 months. Front Neurol 2019; 10: 1371.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.01371 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.01371
Hochleitner I, Pellicciari L, Castagnoli C, Paperini A, Politi AM, Campagnini S, et al. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of the Italian Fugl–Meyer assessment of upper and lower extremity. Disabil Rehabil 2023; 45: 2989–2999.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2022.2114553 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2022.2114553
Wiesner K, Schwarz A, Meya L, Kaufmann JE, Traenka C, Luft AR, et al. Interrater reliability of the Fugl–Meyer Motor assessment in stroke patients: a quality management project within the ESTREL study. Front Neurol 2024; 15: 1335375.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2024.1335375 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2024.1335375
Prange-Lasonder GB, Alt Murphy M, Lamers I, Hughes AM, Buurke JH, Feys P, et al. European evidence-based recommendations for clinical assessment of upper limb in neurorehabilitation (CAULIN): data synthesis from systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil 2021; 18: 162.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00951-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00951-y
Van Criekinge T, Heremans C, Burridge J, et al. Standardized measurement of balance and mobility post-stroke: consensus-based core recommendations from the third Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2023; 38: 41–51.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15459683231209154 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15459683231209154
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Barbora Kolářová, Petra Gaul-Aláčová, Nicole Musilová, Anna Majerová, Margit Alt Murphy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All digitalized JRM contents is available freely online. The Foundation for Rehabilitation Medicine owns the copyright for all material published until volume 40 (2008), as from volume 41 (2009) authors retain copyright to their work and as from volume 49 (2017) the journal has been published Open Access, under CC-BY-NC licences (unless otherwise specified). The CC-BY-NC licenses allow third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for non-commercial purposes, provided proper attribution to the original work.
From 2024, articles are published under the CC-BY licence. This license permits sharing, adapting, and using the material for any purpose, including commercial use, with the condition of providing full attribution to the original publication.
