Tests & Measures: A Resource for Pediatric Physical Therapy Practitioners

Functional Mobility Assessment

Functional Mobility Assessment Tool

Descriptive Information

1. 1. Title– Functional Mobility Assessment Tool
   2. Edition-First
   3. Dates of Publication and Revision 2007
   4. Author: Victoria Marchese
2. Source: unable to find
3. Costs: Available online
4. Purpose : to determine functional mobility in children over 13 y/o following lower extremity sarcoma resection
5. Type of Test:  6 category screen involving evaluation and interview, subjective and objective findings
6. Target Population and Ages: children >13 y/o with LE amputations or resections
7. Time Requirements – Administration and Scoring 20-30 min
8. Test Administration
   1. Administration: 6 subcategories- 1) pain, 2) TUG and TUDS (with HR and RPE), 3) supports, 4) satisfaction with walking quality, 5) participation in work, school, or sports, 6) 9min run-walk test (PCI, HR and RPE measured)
   2. Scoring: raw scores are given for each category and then converted to a table score listed on the L side of the form. Scores range from 0-5. Max score is a 70.
   3. Type of information, resulting from testing: standard scores for control groups and amputation groups

Environment for Testing: anywhere with access to 9 min walk-run space

Equipment and Materials Needed: FMA form, stop-watch, distance measure, place to perform 9 min run-walk

Examiner Qualifications: unable to find

Psychometric Characteristics: this test is valid and reliable. See sources below

Standardization/normative data: Average score of 59. “Means and standard deviations for all participants: Timed Up and Down Stairs 6.18 ± 0.8 seconds, Timed Up and Go 3.78 ± 0.6 seconds, 9-minute run/walk 4161 ± 893 feet, and the FMA total 59 ± 3.” Taken from article below.

Marchese VG, Oriel KN, Fry JA, Kovacs JL, Weaver RL, Reilly MM, Ginsberg JP. Development of reference values for the Functional Mobility Assessment. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2012 Fall;24(3):224-30. doi: 10.1097/PEP.0b013e31825c87e7. See this article for detailed normative data.

Evidence of Reliability: Excellent intra and inter-reliability (ICC > 0.97) Test-retest reliability scores for all items and participants were above the acceptable value for a clinical assessment tool (≥0.80).

Marchese VG, Rai SN, Carlson CA, et al. Assessing functional mobility in survivors of lower-extremity sarcoma: reliability and validity of a new assessment tool. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2007;49:183–189

Evidence of Validity: This article states that “Discriminant validity of the FMA as a whole is supported.”

Pierce S, Fergus A, Brady B, Wolff-Burke M. Examination of the functional mobility assessment tool for children and adolescents with lower extremity amputations. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2011;23:171–177.

Discriminative and Predictive: “The FMA is a reliable and valid functional outcome measure for patients with lower-extremity sarcoma.”

Marchese VG, Rai SN, Carlson CA, et al. Assessing functional mobility in survivors of lower-extremity sarcoma: reliability and validity of a new assessment tool. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2007;49:183–189.

 

• Summary Comments
  1. Strengths-
     1. Easy to administer.
     2. Ability to identify functional mobility deficits
     3. Reliable and valid
  2. Weaknesses
     1. Difficulty monitoring patients progress
     2. Need space

Clinical Applications

1. Clinicians and researchers can use this tool to determine functional mobility of children with lower extremity amputations.
2. Normative data

 

Pierce S, Fergus A, Brady B, Wolff-Burke M. Examination of the functional mobility assessment tool for children and adolescents with lower extremity amputations. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2011;23:171–177.

 

The purpose of this article was to assess the validity of the FMA for children with lower extremity amputations. They had 25 subjects with lower extremity amputations and an average age of 12.36 and 12 subjects with typical development and an average age of 10.25. These children were examined using the FMA and it found significant differences between the two groups. Distances for the 9 min run/walk test were further for the typically developing group. The TUG times were longer for the amputation group as well. The items that did not show a significant difference between groups were PCI, pain, RPE and subjective measure of assistive device. This study showed that the discriminant validity of the FMA as a whole is supported.