You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Construct Validity and Reliability of the SARA Gait and Posture Sub-scale in Early Onset Ataxia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00605 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tjitske F. Lawerman, Rick Brandsma, Renate J. Verbeek, Johannes H. van der Hoeven, Roelineke J. Lunsing, Hubertus P. H. Kremer, Deborah A. Sival |
| Abstract |
Aim: In children, gait and posture assessment provides a crucial marker for the early characterization, surveillance and treatment evaluation of early onset ataxia (EOA). For reliable data entry of studies targeting at gait and posture improvement, uniform quantitative biomarkers are necessary. Until now, the pediatric test construct of gait and posture scores of the Scale for Assessment and Rating of Ataxia sub-scale (SARA) is still unclear. In the present study, we aimed to validate the construct validity and reliability of the pediatric (SARAGAIT/POSTURE) sub-scale. Methods: We included 28 EOA patients [15.5 (6-34) years; median (range)]. For inter-observer reliability, we determined the ICC on EOA SARAGAIT/POSTURE sub-scores by three independent pediatric neurologists. For convergent validity, we associated SARAGAIT/POSTURE sub-scores with: (1) Ataxic gait Severity Measurement by Klockgether (ASMK; dynamic balance), (2) Pediatric Balance Scale (PBS; static balance), (3) Gross Motor Function Classification Scale -extended and revised version (GMFCS-E&R), (4) SARA-kinetic scores (SARAKINETIC; kinetic function of the upper and lower limbs), (5) Archimedes Spiral (AS; kinetic function of the upper limbs), and (6) total SARA scores (SARATOTAL; i.e., summed SARAGAIT/POSTURE, SARAKINETIC, and SARASPEECH sub-scores). For discriminant validity, we investigated whether EOA co-morbidity factors (myopathy and myoclonus) could influence SARAGAIT/POSTURE sub-scores. Results: The inter-observer agreement (ICC) on EOA SARAGAIT/POSTURE sub-scores was high (0.97). SARAGAIT/POSTURE was strongly correlated with the other ataxia and functional scales [ASMK (rs = -0.819; p < 0.001); PBS (rs = -0.943; p < 0.001); GMFCS-E&R (rs = -0.862; p < 0.001); SARAKINETIC (rs = 0.726; p < 0.001); AS (rs = 0.609; p = 0.002); and SARATOTAL (rs = 0.935; p < 0.001)]. Comorbid myopathy influenced SARAGAIT/POSTURE scores by concurrent muscle weakness, whereas comorbid myoclonus predominantly influenced SARAKINETIC scores. Conclusion: In young EOA patients, separate SARAGAIT/POSTURE parameters reveal a good inter-observer agreement and convergent validity, implicating the reliability of the scale. In perspective of incomplete discriminant validity, it is advisable to interpret SARAGAIT/POSTURE scores for comorbid muscle weakness. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 24% |
| Researcher | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 4% |
| Professor | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 23 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 12 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 7% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 30 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,577,751
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,095
of 7,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#327,120
of 439,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#144
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,190 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,188 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.