Skip to main content
  

Rehab Measures: Motor Assessment Scale

Link to instrument

Motor Assessment Scale Testing Form 

Title of Assessment

Motor Assessment Scale 

Acronym

MAS

Instrument Reviewer(s)

Summary Date

 

Purpose

Assesses everyday motor function in stroke patients

Description

  • 8 items that assess 8 areas of motor function
  • Patients perform each task 3 times, only the best performance is recorded
  • Items (with the exception of the general tonus item*) are assessed using a 7-point scale (0 to 6)
  • A score of 6 indicates optimal motor behavior
  • Item scores (with the exception of the general tonus item) are summed to provide an overall score (out of 48 points)
  • Completing a higher-level item suggests successful performance on lower-level items and thus lower-items can be skipped.

*For the general tonus item, the score is based on continuous observations throughout the assessment. A score of 4 on this item indicates a consistently normal response, a score > 4 indicates persistent hypertonus, and a score < 4 indicates various degrees of hypotonus (Carr et al, 1985).

Area of Assessment

Activities of Daily Living; Functional Mobility 

Body Part

Not Applicable 

ICF Domain

Activity 

Domain

ADL; Motor 

Assessment Type

Observer 

Length of Test

06 to 30 Minutes 

Time to Administer

15 minutes

Number of Items

Equipment Required

  • Stopwatch
  • 8 Jellybeans
  • Polystyrene cup
  • Rubber ball
  • Stool
  • Comb
  • Spoon
  • Pen
  • 2 Tea cups
  • Water
  • Prepared sheet for drawing lines
  • Cylindrical shaped object like a jar
  • Table

Training Required

Both the original and modified versions of the MAS demonstrate high inter-rater and test-retest reliability when used by graduate physiotherapists after some training (Ada et al, 2003).

Type of training required

No Training 

Cost

Free 

Actual Cost

Free

Age Range

Adult: 18-64 years; Elderly adult: 65+ 

Administration Mode

Paper/Pencil 

Diagnosis

Stroke 

Populations Tested

Stroke

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Not Established

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Not Established

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Not Established

Cut-Off Scores

Not Applicable

 

Normative Data

Mixed Stroke Sample: (English et al, 2006; n = 61 chronic and acute patients; mean age = 65.2 (13.1) years; mean time between admission and discharge assessments = 56.4 (38.1) days)
MAS scores at admission:
Item #
Dimension
Mean (SD)
1
Rolling
3.3 (2.0)
2
Lie to sit
4.8 (1.4)
3
Balanced sitting
5.4 (0.84)
4
Sit to stand
3.6 (1.9)
5
Walking
1.8 (1.8)
6
Upper arm function
3.2 (2.3)
7
Hand movements
2.5 (2.5)
8
Advanced hand activities
1.2 (1.5)

Test-retest Reliability

Chronic Stroke: (Carr et al, 1985; n = 15; mean age = 70 years, range = 42 to 85)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability: r ranged from 0.87 to 1.00 (mean r = 0.98)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Chronic & Acute Stroke: (Carr et al, 1985; 20 clinical raters; n = 5; mean age = 65 years, range = 55 to 78; mean time since stroke onset = 14 (range = 6 to 40) weeks)
  • Excellent Interrater Reliability; 87% overall agreement between raters (mean correlation r = 0.95; most agreement = balanced sitting (r = 0.99); least agreement = sitting to standing (r = 0.89).

Internal Consistency

Not established

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Acute Stroke: (Malouin et al, 1994, n = 32, mean age = 60 years,  mean time since stroke =  64.5 days)

  • Excellent Concurrent Validity with Fugl-Meyer (FMA) total scores (r = 0.96, not including general tonus items)
  • Adequate to Excellent item level Concurrent Validity between MAS items and similar FMA items (r = 0.65 to 0.93)
  • Poor Concurrent Validity with MAS and FMA sitting balance (r = -0.10)

Construct Validity (Convergent/Discriminant)

Acute Stroke: (Tyson & DeSouza, 2004; n = 48; mean age = 66.7 (12.5) years; median time since stroke = 11 weeks)

MAS and functional balance test:

  • Adequate Convergent Validity: Sitting arm raise (no. of raises; r = 0.33*)
  • Adequate Convergent Validity: Sitting forward reach (cm, r = 0.54**)

* p < 0.05
** p < 0.01

Content Validity

The MAS was developed by Carr and Shepherd (1985) based on many years of experience with similar measures

Face Validity

Not established

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Chronic & Acute Stroke: (English et al, 2006)
 
Floor n (%)

Ceiling n (%)

Item
Dimension
Admission
Discharge
Admission
Discharge
1
Rolling
1 (1.6)
1 (1.6)
15 (24.6)
45 (73.8)
2
Lie to sit
0 (0)
0 (0)
27 (44.3)
53 (86.9)
3
Balanced sitting
0 (0)
0 (0)
35 (57.4)
56 (91.8)
4
Sit to stand
1 (1.6)
0 (0)
8 (13.1)
38 (62.3)
5
Walking
24 (39.3)
3 (4.9)
3 (4.9)
9 (14.8)
6
Upper arm function
11 (18.0)
3 (4.9)
12 (19.7)
25 (41.0)
7
Hand movements
25 (41.0)
17 (27.9)
11 (18.0)
22 (36.1)
8
Advanced hand activities
29 (47.5)
22 (36.1)
3 (4.9)
10 (16.4)

Responsiveness

Chronic & Acute Stroke: (English et al, 2006)
 
MAS sensitivity:
 
Item
Dimension
Effect
Effect size (d)
% Change
1
Rolling
Large
1.03
31.1
2
Lie to sit
Moderate
0.74
44.3
3
Balanced sitting
Moderate
0.61
60.7
4
Sit to stand
Large
0.85
18
5
Walking
Large
1.02
19.7
6
Upper arm function
Small
0.36
44.3
7
Hand movements
Small
0.43
55.7
8
Advanced hand activities
Moderate
0.50

63.9

Professional Association Recommendations

Considerations

  • The general tonus item may be difficult to assess because no guidelines regarding where it should be tested or how the item should be scored exist (e.g. when there is variance between leg, arm, and trunk).
  • This item is often omitted for these reasons (Poole & Whitney, 1988; Malouin et al, 1994; Loewen & Anderson, 1990).
  • Reliability has only been established in stable patients
  • Research suggests the Fugl-Meyer Assessment better discriminates between levels of motor recovery in the early recovery and among more disabled patients (Malouin et al, 1994)
Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Bibliography

Ada, L., Canning, C., et al. (2004). "Training physiotherapy students' abilities in scoring the motor assessment scale for stroke." J Allied Health 33(4): 267-270. Find it on PubMed

Carr, J. H., Shepherd, R. B., et al. (1985). "Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients." Phys Ther 65: 175-180. Find it on PubMed

English, C. K., Hillier, S. L., et al. (2006). "The sensitivity of three commonly used outcome measures to detect change among patients receiving inpatient rehabilitation following stroke." Clin Rehabil 20(1): 52-55. Find it on PubMed

Loewen, S. C. and Anderson, B. A. (1990). "Predictors of stroke outcome using objective measurement scales." Stroke 21: 78-81. Find it on PubMed

Malouin, F., Pichard, L., et al. (1994). "Evaluating motor recovery early after stroke: comparison of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment and the Motor Assessment Scale." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75: 1206-1212. Find it on PubMed

Poole, J. L. and Whitney, S. L. (1988). "Motor assessment scale for stroke patients: concurrent validity and interrater reliability." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 69: 195-197. Find it on PubMed

Tyson, S. F. and DeSouza, L. H. (2004). "Reliability and validity of functional balance tests post stroke." Clin Rehabil 18(8): 916-923. Find it on PubMed

Year published

1985 

Instrument in PDF Format

Yes 
Approval Status Approved 
 
Attachments
Created at 10/30/2010 11:36 AM  by Dawood Ali 
Last modified at 12/4/2013 5:08 PM  by Jason Raad