Skip to main content
Duke University Libraries
DukeSpace Scholarship by Duke Authors
  • Login
  • Ask
  • Menu
  • Login
  • Ask a Librarian
  • Search & Find
  • Using the Library
  • Research Support
  • Course Support
  • Libraries
  • About
View Item 
  •   DukeSpace
  • Archival Collections
  • MEC Symposium Conference Proceedings
  • View Item
  •   DukeSpace
  • Archival Collections
  • MEC Symposium Conference Proceedings
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

ASSESSMENT OF CAPACITY FOR MYOELECTRIC CONTROL: CONSTRUCT VALIDITY AND RATING SCALE STRUCTURE

Thumbnail
View / Download
249.6 Kb
Date
2008
Authors
Lindner, Helen Y. N.
Linacre, John M.
Norling Hermansson, Liselotte M.
Repository Usage Stats
1,632
views
700
downloads
Abstract
The Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control (ACMC) is a 30-item standardized clinical assessment designed for the upper limb prosthesis group [1, 2]. It measures the quality of prosthetic hand movement performed by the prosthesis user during a self-chosen two-handed functional task. ACMC is suitable for prosthesis users of all ages and of all prosthetic sides/levels [2, 3] . Previously, repeated ACMC assessments of upper limb prosthesis users were used to evaluate the validity of the construct [1]. Since the strengths and weaknesses among these users were likely to be repeated several times in the data obtained, the abilities of the prosthesis users in that sample might not give the best picture of the functioning of the items. It was hypothesised that a wider range of ability across the sample might provide a better picture of the functioning of items. Therefore, a further validation of ACMC based on single measures was considered. The performance of the 30 ACMC items is rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 0-not capable – to 3-spontaneously capable. One concern is if the four ACMC categories are sufficient to differentiate the prosthesis users on the basis of their abilities. Another concern is whether the raters have used the four categories in the expected manner. The overall aim of this study was therefore (a) to evaluate the construct validity of ACMC and (b) to examine the 4-point rating scale structure and its use. With a larger sample of single measures, specific questions were asked: Does a larger number of subjects provide a wider range of prosthetic ability than was found in the first validity study? Does the hierarchical order of ACMC items match the clinical knowledge about the difficulty of the items? Do all the items work together to measure a single “prosthetic control” dimension? Do all the items function as expected? Is the 4-point rating scale appropriately constructed to differentiate between prosthesis users with different abilities? Have the four rating-scale categories been used in the expected manner?
Type
Other article
Subject
myoelectric control
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/2793
Citation
Proceedings of the MEC’08 conference, UNB; 2008.
Collections
  • MEC Symposium Conference Proceedings
More Info
Show full item record

Copyright 2002, 2005 and 2008, The University of New Brunswick.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Creative Commons License

Rights for Collection: MEC Symposium Conference Proceedings


Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info

Make Your Work Available Here

How to Deposit

Browse

All of DukeSpaceCommunities & CollectionsAuthorsTitlesTypesBy Issue DateDepartmentsAffiliations of Duke Author(s)SubjectsBy Submit DateThis CollectionAuthorsTitlesTypesBy Issue DateDepartmentsAffiliations of Duke Author(s)SubjectsBy Submit Date

My Account

LoginRegister

Statistics

View Usage Statistics
Duke University Libraries

Contact Us

411 Chapel Drive
Durham, NC 27708
(919) 660-5870
Perkins Library Service Desk

Digital Repositories at Duke

  • Report a problem with the repositories
  • About digital repositories at Duke
  • Accessibility Policy
  • Deaccession and DMCA Takedown Policy

TwitterFacebookYouTubeFlickrInstagramBlogs

Sign Up for Our Newsletter
  • Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
  • Harmful Language Statement
  • Support the Libraries
Duke University