Motor Function Assessment Scale

  • S. Freivogel
  • S. Piorreck


When scanning the literature we were not able to find any assessment scale which records motor disability after head injury in a differentiated and objective way (Bobath 1985; Bond 1976; Evans 1981; Ylvisaker 1985). Without such a scale communication becomes more difficult, for example, when patients change hospitals; moreover, differentiated control of their progress is impossible. It was therefore our aim to develop a test sheet answering the following demands: It should show motor disability as well as the course of the therapy after head injuries, and its use should be economical so that it can also be applied as a screening method. We developed our test sheet as a functional sheet, i.e. its objective is to test clearly defined tasks which are relevant in everyday life (for exampe 10 m of free walking without any help). These tasks are rated by “0 = fulfilled” or “1 =not fulfilled.” Altogether, the sheet examines 44 functions which are divided into four groups: sitting, standing up and standing, walking, functioning of the upper extremities. The tasks within the respective groups have a different, usually progressive degree of difficulty. They are chosen in such a way that they test motor capabilities which at the same time have functional importance. For example, item 35 “reaching left ear with right hand across head” tests the mobility of shoulder, elbow, and wrist, as well as indirectly to what extent the patient can comb his or her own hair without any help (Fig. 1).


Head Injury Severe Head Injury Expert Rating Motor Disability Test Sheet 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ashworth B (1964) Preliminary trial of crisoprodol in multiple sclerosis. Practitioner 192:540–542PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bobath B (1985) Hemiplegia. Examination, assessment and treatment. Thieme, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  3. Bond MR (1976) Assessment of the psychosocial outcome severe head injury. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 4:57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks N (1984) Closed head injury. Psychological, social, and family consequences. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Davies PM (1986) Hemiplegia. Instruction for a complete treatment of patients with hemiplegia based on the concept by K and B Bobath. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Evans CD (1981) Rehabilitation after severe head injury. Churchill, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  7. Gerstenbrand F, Hoff H (1963) Problems of rehabilitation after severe head injury. Clin J Wien 35:622–626Google Scholar
  8. Jennett B, Bond M (1975) Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage. Lancet 1:480–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Knupfer H, Rathke FW (1982) Diagnosticai and therapeutical practice with spastical pareses. Teamwork of M.D. and physiotherapist. Thieme, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  10. Pampus I (1974) Rehabilitation of head-injured patients. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart (Publication serie of the Ministery of Health and Family, vol 19)Google Scholar
  11. Rosenthal M, Griffith E, Bond M, Miller J (1983) Rehabilitation of the head injured adult. Davies, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  12. Ylvisaker M (1985) head injury rehabilitation: children and adolescents. Taylor and Francis, College Hill Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Freivogel
  • S. Piorreck

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations