ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03496337Updated Dec 21, 2018

Is AMPS a Responsive Tool for Assessing Change in ADL-abilities After Finger or Hand Surgery

An observational study in Radius Fractures, Hand Fracture and Hand Injuries, sponsored by Central Jutland Regional Hospital. Completed at 1 site in Denmark. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2018-12-21.

Sponsored by Central Jutland Regional Hospital · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
45
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The aim of the study is to assess the responsiveness of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) in a population of patients undergoing rehabilitation following hand surgery, as this has not previously been investigated.

Methods: Patients are included from the department of physical and occupational therapy at Silkeborg Regional Hospital in the period November 2017 to May 2018. A total of 50 patients, who have been referred for specialized occupational therapy rehabilitation following finger or hand surgery, will be included. At baseline and follow-up (after 8 weeks) all patients are assessed with AMPS, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), hand grip strength and joint range of motion using standardized methods. Responsiveness to change is evaluated using an anchor-based method, comparing AMPS scores with the scores on the Global Rating Scale. The area under the ROC curve will be calculated, and an area under the curve of 0.7 is considered acceptable. Convergent and discriminative validity of the AMPS will be assessed across the different instruments used. Thus the investigators expect a higher correlation between AMPS and COPM and lower correlation between AMPS and hand grip strength and range of motion.

Read the detailed description

Rehabilitation following finger or hand surgery is often evaluated using only instruments assessing bodily function, e.g. hand grip strength and joint range of motion. However, considering the ICF rehabilitation framework, outcome measures should focus more on activity and participation. Furthermore, many patients requiring finger or hand surgery are still at the labor market, which underlines the importance of a valid assessment of their abilities in terms of activity and participation. This study will provide valuable knowledge in terms of whether AMPS is a valid tool for measuring improvement on these parameters in a population for which AMPS has not traditionally been used.

The aim of the study is to assess the responsiveness of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) in a population of patients undergoing rehabilitation following hand surgery, as this has not previously been investigated.

Methods: Patients are included from the department of physical and occupational therapy at Silkeborg Regional Hospital in the period November 2017 to July 2018. A total of 50 patients, who have been referred for specialized occupational therapy rehabilitation following finger or hand injuries, will be included. Patients are excluded if they have movement restrictions following surgery (e.g. following surgery for tendon ruptures).

At baseline and follow-up (after 8 weeks) all patients are assessed with AMPS, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), hand grip strength and joint range of motion using standardized methods. All test procedures are performed according to a standardized test protocol.

Statistical methods: Responsiveness to change is evaluated using an anchor-based method, comparing AMPS scores with the scores on the Global Rating Scale. The area under the ROC curve will be calculated, and an area under the curve of 0.7 is considered acceptable. Convergent and discriminative validity of the AMPS will be assessed across the different instruments used. Thus a higher correlation between AMPS and COPM and lower correlation between AMPS and hand grip strength and range of motion is expected.

02

Conditions studied

  • Radius Fractures
  • Hand Fracture
  • Hand Injuries

Keywords

  • activities of daily living
  • assessment of motor and process skills
  • validation study
  • responsiveness study
03

In context

Radius Fractures

62 studies on the registry are indexed under Radius Fractures; 6 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 45 is close to the median of 50 across 13 observational studies indexed under Radius Fractures.

Browse Radius Fractures studies →

Lead sponsor

Central Jutland Regional Hospital is the lead sponsor of 32 studies on the registry; 5 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Child (0–17), Adult (18–64), Older adult (65+)
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

Patients are included from the department of physical and occupational therapy at Silkeborg Regional Hospital in the period November 2017 to May 2018. A total of 50 patients, who have been referred for specialized occupational therapy rehabilitation following finger, hand, wrist or forearm surgery, will be included.

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients referred for occupational therapy rehabilitation at Silkeborg Regional Hospital following surgery of the forearm, wrist, hand or fingers.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients who cannot perform rehabilitation due to movement restrictions following surgery.
05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
45 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No

Interventions

  • OtherAssessment of motor and process skills test

    At baseline and follow-up (after 8-10 weeks) all patients are assessed with AMPS in addition to the standard test of Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) hand grip strength and joint range of motion.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Change in "Assessment of motor and process skills (AMPS)" from baseline to 8 weeks

    The Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) is an observational assessment that allows for the simultaneous evaluation of motor and process skills and their effect on the ability of an individual to perform complex or instrumental and personal activities of daily living. After an initial interview with the patient, the rater selects a subset of 3-5 ADL tasks from a list of standardized tasks that are described in the AMPS manual (e.g. fetching a drink from the fridge, folding laundry, preparing a sandwich). The tasks selected must be relevant and meaningful to the patient, and consist of tasks that he/she once knew how to perform. The tasks must be challenging to the patient. From this subset of tasks, the client then selects 2-3 tasks to perform.

    Time frame: Measured at baseline and 8 weeks after baseline

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Diagnostic Centre, Regional Hospital Silkeborg
    Silkeborg, 8600, Denmark
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Dec 21, 2018, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03496337
Lead sponsor
Central Jutland Regional Hospital
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Apr 12, 2018
Start date
Nov 1, 2017
Primary completion
Sep 1, 2018
Completion
Sep 1, 2018
Last update
Dec 21, 2018

Study contacts

Nanna Rolving, PhD
principal investigator · Regionshospitalet Silkeborg

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2018. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion