Skip to main content
. 2015 Mar 31;27(3):815–818. doi: 10.1589/jpts.27.815

Table 2. Comparison of the two groups’ stroke impairment assessment set.

Items Nonweakness group Weakness group


Median Range Median Range
Motor function
Knee-mouth test 4 4–5 5 4–5
Finger-function test 4 4–5 5 4–5
Hip-flexion test 5 4–5 5 4–5
Knee-extension test 5 4–5 5 4–5
Foot-pat test 5 4–5 5 4–5
Muscle tone
U/E muscle tone 3 2–3 3 2–3
L/E muscle tone 3 2–3 3 2–3
U/E deep tendon reflex 2 1–3 3 2–3
U/E deep tendon reflex 3 1–3 3 2–3
Sensation
U/E light touch 3 2–3 3 2–3
L/E light touch 3 2–3 3 2–3
U/E position 3 3 3 2–3
U/E position 3 3 3 2–3
Range of motion
U/E ROM 3 2–3 3 2–3
L/E ROM 3 2–3 3 2–3
Pain 3 2–3 3 2–3
Trunk function
Verticality test 3 3 3 2–3
Unaffected side function
Grip strength 2 1–3 2 2–3
Quadriceps strength 3 2–3 3 1–3
Visuo-spatial deficit 3 3 3 3
Speech 3 2–3 3 1–3
Total score 71 61–75 68 64–74
Abdominal muscle strength 3* 3 2 1–2

*Significant difference between groups. There was a significant difference in the abdominal muscle strength because subjects were divided into two groups according to it. U/E: upper extremity; L/E: lower extremity; ROM: range of motion