Rehab Measures - Wolf Motor Function Test

Link to instrument

WMFT info can be found on Stroke (external link)

Title of Assessment

Wolf Motor Function Test

Acronym

WMFT

Instrument Reviewer(s)

Initially reviewed by Jason Raad MS and the Rehabilitation Measures Team; Updated by Irene Ward, PT, DPT, NCS and the TBI EDGE task force of the Neurology Section of the APTA in 2012.

Summary Date

1/17/2013

Purpose

Quantitative measure of upper extremity motor ability through timed and functional tasks

Description

The original version consisted of 21 item; the widely used version of the WMFT consists of 17 items
Composed of 3 parts:

Time
Functional ability
Strength

Includes 15 function-based tasks and 2 strength based tasks

Performance time is referred to as WMFT-TIME
Functional ability is referred to as WMFT-FAS

Items 1-6 involve timed functional tasks, items 7-14 are measures of strength, and the remaining 9 items consist of analyzing movement quality when completing various tasks
Examiner should test the less affected upper extremity followed by the most affected side.
Uses a 6-point ordinal scale

"0" = “does not attempt with the involved arm” to
"5" = “arm does participate; movement appears to be normal.”

Maximum score is 75
Lower scores are indicative of lower functioning levels
WMFT-TIME allows 120 seconds per task

Area of Assessment

Dexterity; Strength; Upper Extremity Function

Body Part

Upper Extremity

ICF Domain

Activity

Domain

Motor

Assessment Type

Performance Measure

Length of Test

06 to 30 Minutes

Time to Administer

35 minutes

Number of Items

The original version consisted of 21 items (Wolf et al., 2005)

Equipment Required

Standardized table (54 inches long, 30 inches wide, and 29 inches high) and chair
Standardized test item template
Height-adjustable bedside table
Box (one that does not require patient to flex or abduct shoulder more than 90 degrees)
Individual wrist weights, 1-20 pounds
12-oz beverage can, unopened
7” pencil with 6 flat sides
2” paper clip
3 checkers
Three 3” x5” note cards
Standardized lock and key board at 45 degree angle
Standardized face towel
Standardized basket
Dynamometer
Talcum powder to reduce friction as needed
Stopwatch
Video camera (optional)

Training Required

None necessary

Type of training required

No Training

Cost

Free

Actual Cost

Free

Age Range

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

Administration Mode

Computer

Diagnosis

Stroke; Traumatic Brain Injury

Populations Tested

Stroke
Traumatic Brain Injury

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Chronic Stroke: (Fritz et al. 2009; n = 96; mean age = 62.3 (range, 19–90) years)

Standard error of measurement (SEM) in stroke: 0.2 seconds

Reliability Indices for WMFT:

Item No.

Item Description

SEM

Average WMFT time score
0.2

1
Forearm to table
0.8

2

Forearm to box

0.6

3

Extend elbow

0.6

4

Extend elbow with weight

0.8

5
Hand to table (front)
0.5

6

Hand to box (front)

0.7

7

Weight to box (lbs)

1.9

8
Reach and retrieve
1.2

9

Lift can

1.2

10
Lift pencil
1.1

11
Lift paper clip
0.8

12

Stack checkers

1.1

13

Flip cards

0.4

14

Grip strength (lbs)

0.0

15
Turn key in lock
0.4

16

Fold towel

0.4

17

Lift basket

0.7

Average WMFT FAS

0.1

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Chronic Stroke: (Fritz et al, 2009)

Average for timed items: 0.7 seconds
Average for WMFT Functional Ability Scale: 0.1 points

Reliability Indices for WMFT:

Item No.

Item Description
95% MDC

Average WMFT time score
0.7

1
Forearm to table
2.1

2

Forearm to box

1.6

3

Extend elbow

1.7

4

Extend elbow with weight

2.4

5
Hand to table (front)
1.5

6

Hand to box (front)

1.9

7

Weight to box (lbs)

5.2

8
Reach and retrieve
3.4

9

Lift can

2.0

10
Lift pencil
3.0

11
Lift paper clip
2.2

12

Stack checkers

3.2

13

Flip cards

1.2

14

Grip strength (lbs)

0.1

15
Turn key in lock
1.0

16

Fold towel

1.2

17

Lift basket

2.0

Average WMFT FAS

0.1

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Acute Stroke: (Lang et al, 2008; n = 52; mean age = 64 (14) years; < 28 days post-stroke)

MCID (Functional Ability):

1.0 points (Dominant Side Affected)
1.2 points (Non-dominant Side Affected)
17% change (Dominant Side Affected)
20% change (Non-dominant Side Affected)

MCID (time):

-19.0 seconds (Dominant Side Affected)
16% change (Dominant Side Affected)

Cut-Off Scores

Not established

Normative Data

Chronic Stroke: (Wing et al, 2006; n = 35; mean age = 60.2 (14.1) years; rehab = 3–6 hours/day, 4–5 days/week, ≥2 weeks; mean time since stroke = 40.9 (29.1) months)

Outcome measure:
Measure	n	Pretest mean	Posttest mean
Wolf Motor Function Test (mean)	29	55.6 s	45.2 s
TUG	30	31.0 s	20.2 s
Berg Balance	32	46.5	47.2
Fugl-Meyer (m)	34	31.8	37.0
Box and Block	11	11.2	18.0
s = seconds; all means were significant
TUG = Timed Up & Go Test Fugl-Meyer (m) = 66-point Fugl-Meyer motor assessment

Test-retest Reliability

Chronic Traumatic Brain Injury: (Shaw et al., 2005; n = 22; Mean age = 39.3 (14.4) years, onset at least 1 year prior to assessment; relative hemiparesis)

Excellent ICC = 0.97 (range = 0.89 - 0.97); agreement between the self-report and objective measures

Chronic Stroke: (Morris et al, 2001; n = 24; mean age 61; mean time since one set = 6 years; Whithall et al, 2006; n = 66; mean age = 58 (14) years; >6 months post-stroke)

Excellent test-retest reliability, Functional ability and performance tests (r = 0.95; 0.90, respectively)
Excellent overall total score (n = 66; ICC = 0.97)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Chronic Stroke: (Morris et al, 2001; Whithall, 2006; Wolf et al, 2001; n = 19, mean age = 61.4 (9.5) years; mean time since stroke = 4.9 (6.4) years)

Excellent inter-rater reliability:

Study1: n = 24: ICC = 0.93; 0.99, functional ability and performance test respectively.
Study 2: n = 10; ICC = 0.99
Study 3: n = 19: ICC = 0.97

Internal Consistency

Chronic Stroke: (Morris et al, 2001)

Excellent Internal Consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.92)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Chronic Stroke: (Wolf et al, 2001; Whithall et al, 2006)

Adequate concurrent validity with:

Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment
Study 1: n = 19 (r = - 0.57)
Study 2: n = 66 (r = - 0.88)

Construct Validity (Convergent/Discriminant)

Wolf et al (2001) evaluated whether the WMFT was able to distinguish between individuals with impairment secondary to stroke (n = 19) from those without impairment (n = 19).
Known group's validity, as calculated using Wilcoxon test, showed that the WMFT scores for the dominant and the non-dominant hand of individuals without impairment were significant higher when compared to the most and to the least affected upper extremities of clients with stroke.

Content Validity

Not Established

Face Validity

Not Established

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Not Established

Responsiveness

Acute Stroke: (Hsieh et al, 2009; n = 57; mean age = 54.56 (11.52) years; Taiwanese sample)

Responsiveness of 3 Outcome Measures:
Scale Name	SRM (95% CI)	Wilcoxon Test Z-Value
WMFT-TIME	0.38 (0.22, 0.59)	5.97*
WMFT-FAS	1.30 (1.03, 1.67)	5.59*
FIM-total	0.36 (0.17, 0.59)	3.39*
FIM-motor	0.37 (0.17, 0.58)	3.18*
FMA	1.42 (1.19, 1.80)	6.33*
ARAT	0.95 (0.75, 1.20)	4.64*
*P<0.001
WMFT-TIME = performance time of the Wolf Motor Function Test WMFT-FAS = functional ability scale of the Wolf Motor Function Test FIM = Functional Independence Measure FMA = Fugl-Meyer Assessment ARAT = Action Research Arm Test
SRM = standardized response mean CI = confidence interval

Professional Association Recommendations

Considerations

Observer plots were a less stable method of scoring the WMFT, suggesting relatively higher measurement error for the WMFT than the ARAT. (Nijland, 2010)

Bibliography

Fritz, S. L., Blanton, S., et al. (2009). "Minimal detectable change scores for the Wolf Motor Function Test." Neurorehabil Neural Repair 23: 662-667. Find it on PubMed

Lang, C. E., Edwards, D. F., et al. (2008). "Estimating minimal clinically important differences of upper-extremity measures early after stroke." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 89(9): 1693-1700. Find it on PubMed

Morris, D. M., Uswatte, G., et al. (2001). "The reliability of the wolf motor function test for assessing upper extremity function after stroke." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 82: 750-755. Find it on PubMed

Nijland, R., van Wegen, E., et al. (2010). "A comparison of two validated tests for upper limb function after stroke: The Wolf Motor Function Test and the Action Research Arm Test." J Rehabil Med 42(7): 694-696. Find it on PubMed

Shaw, S. E., Morris, D. M., et al. (2005). "Constraint-induced movement therapy for recovery of upper-limb function following traumatic brain injury." J Rehabil Res Dev 42(6): 769-778. Find it on PubMed

Whitall, J., Savin, D. N., Jr., et al. (2006). "Psychometric properties of a modified Wolf Motor Function test for people with mild and moderate upper-extremity hemiparesis." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87(5): 656-660. Find it on PubMed

Wing, K., Lynskey, J. V., et al. (2008). "Whole-body intensive rehabilitation is feasible and effective in chronic stroke survivors: a retrospective data analysis." Top Stroke Rehabil 15(3): 247-255. Find it on PubMed

Wolf, S. L., Catlin, P. A., et al. (2001). "Assessing Wolf motor function test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke." Stroke 32: 1635-1639. Find it on PubMed

Year published

1989

Instrument in PDF Format

Approval Status

Approved

Attachments