Article Report 1

Article Report 1

Pacific Northwest University of Health Sciences

OTH505 Foundations of Inquiry

Dr. Cutchin, PhD

October 3, 2023

Adams, R. J., Ellington, A., Armstead, K., Sheffield, K., Patrie, J. T., & Diamond, P. T. (2019).

Upper extremity function assessment using a glove orthosis and virtual reality system.

OTJR-Occupation Participation and Health, 39(2), 81–89.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1539449219829862
Article Report 1

Article Report 1

The author provides a sufficient statement of the clinical problem. He does this by talking

about challenges that stroke patients face. He also mentioned current problems with current

interventions and their limitations. The author mentioned the benefits of using technology such

as virtual reality and motion tracking. The author stated that not much research had been done on

human motion tracking technologies that assess the upper extremity functions. The lack of

research indicates that there is a gap in knowledge. The objectives, research questions, specific

aims all articulated with the problem and knowledge gap because, the researcher had a specific

aim which was to assess the Kinect sensor-based Saebo (VR) Subtask completion time (VR-

SCT), the gold standard clinical measure Wolf Motor Function Test quantitative measure

(WMFT-TIME). The obecjective of the study was clearly defined by the researcher wanting to

know if instrumental activities of daily living (IADLS) were a good way to test a stroke patient’s

upper extremity movement ability. The research question was based on the validity of using

technologies to measure upper extremity movements.

Different types of sampling were utilized in this study, one of them being convenience

sampling. The researchers recruited participants based on those who had strokes and were

admitted into University of Virgina (UVA) Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital in

Charlottesville. The researcher was specific on his target population. The researchers also

utilized convenience sampling. Participants were chosen based on those willing to engage in the

study. This type of approach weakened the study because they only chose participants based on

one location and also having to meet specific requirements.

The types of analysis that were conducted were correlation analysis, criterion validity

analysis, sample size determination, and concurrent validity analysis. All of which focused on
Article Report 1

evaluating the validity of using technology to asses a patients motor function following a stoke

and how accurate this is with what healthcare professionals do in the clinic. The authors

suggested that the VR subtask completion time (VR-SCT) showed high validity when compared

to the WMFT-TIME. This means that this method can be trusted in showing similar results that

the clinical test would give when assessing upper body movement. The researchers also inferred

that the VR-SCT was also reliable since it closely matched the results from the Box and Blocks

and Fungle-Myer (FMUE). The reseachers indicated that the VR Normalized Speed (VR-NS)

was not a reliable source to measure hand function and movement. However, the VR Balls and

Boxes (VR-BAB) was a reliable way to measure upper body movement. These findings did a

great job at answering the research question because the researchers wanted to know if using

computer generated programs would be a good way to inform clinicians on the abilities of a

person following a stroke. Since the tests that they performed were found to be reliable this

suggests that this is a good way to gain information.

The authors did a good job of explaining how using technology can help one understand

where they are at in terms of their mobility. They also did a good job at explaining how this

evidence is backed up by what clinicians test in real life. The authors noted some limitations in

the study. For instance, the author recognized that the sample size was small and having a larger

size would have made the study more accurate. Another limitation was that the participants had

to meet a certain criterion to be able to participate in the study. The conclusion summarized what

the findings were but did not go into detail what could have been done better. The author could

have added the limitations to the study as well.

This contributes to clinical practice because as we move forward with technology, we are

learning that there are other ways to assess movement that may be efficient. As a healthcare
Article Report 1

provider it is important to always be on the lookout for new ways to provide therapy and

improve.

The strengths of this study are that this was their first time conducting a study of this

type, meaning there is so much room for improvement. This is a good baseline for knowledge

and researchers can build on this. Another key strength of this study is that this study is

something that is clinically relevant. This study gives us a new outlook for exploring new

technologies that we can integrate into other therapeutic settings. Some weaknesses were the

small sample size. The validity of the study could have been affected by not having a larger

sample size as well as a variety of participants. The study could have been more generalized by

recruiting others from other hospitals and not implementing a strict criterion in order to

participate.

Annotated Article: file:///C:/Users/apand/Downloads/adams-et-al-2019-upper-extremity-

function-assessment-using-a-glove-orthosis-and-virtual-reality-system.pdf
Article Report 1

References:

Adams, R. J., Ellington, A., Armstead, K., Sheffield, K., Patrie, J. T., & Diamond, P. T. (2019).

Upper extremity function assessment using a glove orthosis and virtual reality system.

OTJR-Occupation Participation and Health, 39(2), 81–89.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1539449219829862