Dataset Information

Concurrent validity of an immersive virtual reality version of the Box and Block Test to assess manual dexterity among patients with stroke.

ABSTRACT:

Background

After a stroke, experts recommend regular monitoring and kinematic assessments of patients to objectively measure motor recovery. With the rise of new technologies and increasing needs for neurorehabilitation, an interest in virtual reality has emerged. In this context, we have developed an immersive virtual reality version of the Box and Block Test (BBT-VR). The aim of this study was to assess the concurrent validity of the BBT-VR among patients with stroke and healthy participants.

Methods

Twenty-three healthy participants and 22 patients with stroke were asked to perform the classical Box and Block Test (BBT) and BBT-VR three times with both hands. Concurrent validity was assessed through correlations between these two tests and reliability of the BBT-VR through correlation on test-retest. Usability of the BBT-VR was also evaluated with the System Usability Scale. Hand kinematic data extracted from controller's 3D position allowed to compute mean velocity (V_mean), peak velocity (V_peak) and smoothness (SPARC).

Results

Results showed strong correlations between the number of blocks displaced with the BBT and the BBT-VR among patients with stroke for affected (r = 0.89; p < 0.001) and less-affected hands (r = 0.76; p < 0.001) and healthy participants for dominant (r = 0.58; p < 0.01) and non-dominant hands (r = 0.68; p < 0.001). Reliability for test-retest was excellent (ICC > 0.8; p < 0.001) and usability almost excellent (System Usability Scale = 79 ± 12.34%). On average participants moved between 30 and 40% less blocks during the BBT-VR than during the BBT. Healthy participants demonstrated significantly higher kinematic measures (V_mean = 0.22 ± 0.086 ms^-1; V_peak = 0.96 ± 0.341 ms^-1; SPARC = - 3.31 ± 0.862) than patients with stroke (V_mean = 0.12 ± 0.052 ms^-1; V_peak = 0.60 ± 0.202 ms^-1; SPARC = - 5.04[- 7.050 to - 3.682]).

Conclusion

The BBT-VR is a usable, valid and reliable test to assess manual dexterity, providing kinematic parameters, in a population of patients with stroke and healthy participants. Trial registration http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04694833, Date of registration: 11/24/2020.

SUBMITTER: Everard G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8783988 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany junior doctors must prepare to manage acutely ill patients in the emergency department. The setting is often stressful, and urgent treatment decisions are needed. Overlooking symptoms and making wrong choices may lead to substantial patient morbidity or death, and it is essential to ensure that junior doctors are competent. Virtual reality (VR) software can provide standardized and unbiased assessment, but solid validity evidence is necessary before implementation.ObjectiveThis study aimed to gather validity evidence for using 360-degree VR videos with integrated multiple-choice questions (MCQs) to assess emergency medicine skills.MethodsFive full-scale emergency medicine scenarios were recorded with a 360-degree video camera, and MCQs were integrated into the scenarios to be played in a head-mounted display. We invited 3 groups of medical students with different experience levels to participate: first- to third-year medical students (novice group), last-year medical students without emergency medicine training (intermediate group), and last-year medical students with completed emergency medicine training (experienced group). Each participant's total test score was calculated based on the number of correct MCQ answers (maximum score of 28), and the groups' mean scores were compared. The participants rated their experienced presence in emergency scenarios using the Igroup Presence Questionnaire (IPQ) and their cognitive workload with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX).ResultsWe included 61 medical students from December 2020 to December 2021. The experienced group had significantly higher mean scores than the intermediate group (23 vs 20; P=.04), and the intermediate group had significantly higher scores than the novice group (20 vs 14; P<.001). The contrasting groups' standard-setting method established a pass-or-fail score of 19 points (68% of the maximum possible score of 28). Interscenario reliability was high, with a Cronbach α of 0.82. The participants experienced the VR scenarios with a high degree of presence with an IPQ score of 5.83 (on a scale from 1-7), and the task was shown to be mentally demanding with a NASA-TLX score of 13.30 (on a scale from 1-21).ConclusionsThis study provides validity evidence to support using 360-degree VR scenarios to assess emergency medicine skills. The students evaluated the VR experience as mentally demanding with a high degree of presence, suggesting that VR is a promising new technology for emergency medicine skills assessment.