scholarly journals Preface to the fourth edition

2022 ◽  
pp. xiii-xiv
Keyword(s):  
Fourth Edition

Perceptions of Stuttering of Different Age Groups

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 1311-1315
Author(s):  
Sergey M. Kondrashov ◽  
John A. Tetnowski
Keyword(s):  
Age Groups ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
School Age ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Self Perception ◽  
Behavioral Measures ◽  
Self Rating ◽  
Comparison Results ◽  
Subject Pool

Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess the perceptions of stuttering of school-age children who stutter and those of adults who stutter through the use of the same tools that could be commonly used by clinicians. Method Twenty-three participants across various ages and stuttering severity were administered both the Stuttering Severity Instrument–Fourth Edition (SSI-4; Riley, 2009 ) and the Wright & Ayre Stuttering Self-Rating Profile ( Wright & Ayre, 2000 ). Comparisons were made between severity of behavioral measures of stuttering made by the SSI-4 and by age (child/adult). Results Significant differences were obtained for the age comparison but not for the severity comparison. Results are explained in terms of the correlation between severity equivalents of the SSI-4 and the Wright & Ayre Stuttering Self-Rating Profile scores, with clinical implications justifying multi-aspect assessment. Conclusions Clinical implications indicate that self-perception and impact of stuttering must not be assumed and should be evaluated for individual participants. Research implications include further study with a larger subject pool and various levels of stuttering severity.

Use of the AMA Guides in State Workers' Compensation Systems: 2009 Update

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-16
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Jenny Walker
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
North Carolina ◽  
South Carolina ◽  
South Dakota ◽  
Rhode Island ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Specific Guideline ◽  
Compensation Systems

Abstract The AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) is the most widely used basis for determining impairment and is used in state workers’ compensation systems, federal systems, automobile casualty, and personal injury, as well as by the majority of state workers’ compensation jurisdictions. Two tables summarize the edition of the AMA Guides used and provide information by state. The fifth edition (2000) is the most commonly used edition: California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Vermont, and Washington. Eleven states use the sixth edition (2007): Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wyoming. Eight states still commonly make use of the fourth edition (1993): Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia. Two states use the Third Edition, Revised (1990): Colorado and Oregon. Connecticut does not stipulate which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Six states use their own state specific guidelines (Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin), and six states do not specify a specific guideline (Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Virginia). Statutes may or may not specify which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Some states use their own guidelines for specific problems and use the Guides for other issues.

Impairment Tutorial: Recurrent Radioculpathy: Recurrent Radioculpathy and Apportionment

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 8-10
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Leon H. Ensalada
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Disk Herniation ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Recurrent Injury ◽  
Injury Model ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Spinal Region

Abstract Recurrent radiculopathy is evaluated by a different approach in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, compared to that in the Fourth Edition. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, specifies several occasions on which the range-of-motion (ROM), not the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) method, is used to rate spinal impairments. For example, the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, clarifies that ROM is used only for radiculopathy caused by a recurrent injury, including when there is new (recurrent) disk herniation or a recurrent injury in the same spinal region. In the AMA Guides, Fourth Edition, radiculopathy was rated using the Injury Model, which is termed the DRE method in the Fifth Edition. Also, in the Fourth Edition, for the lumbar spine all radiculopathies resulted in the same impairment (10% whole person permanent impairment), based on that edition's philosophy that radiculopathy is not quantifiable and, once present, is permanent. A rating of recurrent radiculopathy suggests the presence of a previous impairment rating and may require apportionment, which is the process of allocating causation among two or more factors that caused or significantly contributed to an injury and resulting impairment. A case example shows the divergent results following evaluation using the Injury Model (Fourth Edition) and the ROM Method (Fifth Edition) and concludes that revisions to the latter for rating permanent impairments of the spine often will lead to different results compared to using the Fourth Edition.

Rating Post-Operative Backs (Part I)

1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
James B. Talmage
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Foot Drop ◽  
Neurogenic Claudication ◽  
Root Damage ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Minor Strain ◽  
Injury Model ◽  
Strain Type ◽  
A Minor ◽  
Anterior Tibialis

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition, uses the Injury Model to rate impairment in people who have experienced back injuries. Injured individuals who have not required surgery can be rated using differentiators. Challenges arise when assessing patients whose injuries have been treated surgically before the patient is rated for impairment. This article discusses five of the most common situations: 1) What is the impairment rating for an individual who has had an injury resulting in sciatica and who has been treated surgically, either with chemonucleolysis or with discectomy? 2) What is the impairment rating for an individual who has a back strain and is operated on without reasonable indications? 3) What is the impairment rating of an individual with sciatica and a foot drop (major anterior tibialis weakness) from L5 root damage? 4) What is the rating for an individual who is injured, has true radiculopathy, undergoes a discectomy, and is rated as Category III but later has another injury and, ultimately, a second disc operation? 5) What is the impairment rating for an older individual who was asymptomatic until a minor strain-type injury but subsequently has neurogenic claudication with severe surgical spinal stenosis on MRI/myelography? [Continued in the September/October 1997 The Guides Newsletter]

Fifth Edition: the New Standard

2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
James B. Talmage ◽  
Leon H. Ensalada
Keyword(s):  
Musculoskeletal System ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Objective Assessment ◽  
Scientific Data ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Appropriate Use ◽  
Medical Evaluation ◽  
Single Set

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, is available and includes numerous changes that will affect both evaluators who and systems that use the AMA Guides. The Fifth Edition is nearly twice the size of its predecessor (613 pages vs 339 pages) and contains three additional chapters (the musculoskeletal system now is split into three chapters and the cardiovascular system into two). Table 1 shows how chapters in the Fifth Edition were reorganized from the Fourth Edition. In addition, each of the chapters is presented in a consistent format, as shown in Table 2. This article and subsequent issues of The Guides Newsletter will examine these changes, and the present discussion focuses on major revisions, particularly those in the first two chapters. (See Table 3 for a summary of the revisions to the musculoskeletal and pain chapters.) Chapter 1, Philosophy, Purpose, and Appropriate Use of the AMA Guides, emphasizes objective assessment necessitating a medical evaluation. Most impairment percentages in the Fifth Edition are unchanged from the Fourth because the majority of ratings currently are accepted, there is limited scientific data to support changes, and ratings should not be changed arbitrarily. Chapter 2, Practical Application of the AMA Guides, describes how to use the AMA Guides for consistent and reliable acquisition, analysis, communication, and utilization of medical information through a single set of standards.

Legal Update: North Dakota Supreme Court: Third Edition of Guides is “Most Current”

1999 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-7
Author(s):  
James J. Mangraviti
Keyword(s):  
Internal Rotation ◽  
External Rotation ◽  
Measurement Techniques ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Hip Motion ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Right ◽  
Hip Flexion ◽  
Hip Rotation ◽  
Hip Extension

Abstract The accurate measurement of hip motion is critical when one rates impairments of this joint, makes an initial diagnosis, assesses progression over time, and evaluates treatment outcome. The hip permits all motions typical of a ball-and-socket joint. The hip sacrifices some motion but gains stability and strength. Figures 52 to 54 in AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fourth Edition, illustrate techniques for measuring hip flexion, loss of extension, abduction, adduction, and external and internal rotation. Figure 53 in the AMA Guides, Fourth Edition, illustrates neutral, abducted, and adducted positions of the hip and proper alignment of the goniometer arms, and Figure 52 illustrates use of a goniometer to measure flexion of the right hip. In terms of impairment rating, hip extension (at least any beyond neutral) is irrelevant, and the AMA Guides contains no figures describing its measurement. Figure 54, Measuring Internal and External Hip Rotation, demonstrates proper positioning and measurement techniques for rotary movements of this joint. The difference between measured and actual hip rotation probably is minimal and is irrelevant for impairment rating. The normal internal rotation varies from 30° to 40°, and the external rotation ranges from 40° to 60°.

Spinal Impairment Evaluation: Fifth Edition Changes

2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Robert H. Haralson
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Spinal Cord Injuries ◽  
Clinical Findings ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Treatment Results ◽  
Standard Terminology ◽  
Made In

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.

Clinical Update: Measuring Shoulder Joint Motion

1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 4-5
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
External Rotation ◽  
Joint Motion ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Single Plane ◽  
Reconstructive Procedures ◽  
Results Of Treatment ◽  
Shoulder Disorders ◽  
Shoulder Motion ◽  
Motion Measurements ◽  
Upper Extremity Impairment

Abstract Accurate measurement of shoulder motion is critical in assessing impairment following shoulder disorders. To this end, measuring and recording joint motion are important steps in diagnosing, determining the severity and progression of a disorder, assessing the results of treatment, and evaluating impairment. Shoulder movement usually is composite rather than in a single plane, so isolating single movements is challenging. Universal goniometers with long arms are used to measure shoulder motion, and testing must be performed and recorded consistently. Passive motion may be carried out cautiously by the examiner; two measurements of the same patient by the same examiner should lie within 10° of each other. Shoulder extension and flexion are illustrated. Maximal flexion of the shoulder also includes slight external rotation and abduction, and controlling or eliminating these components during evaluation is challenging. Abduction and adduction are illustrated. Deficits in external rotation may occur in patients who have undergone reconstructive procedures with an anterior approach; deficits in internal rotation may result from issues with shoulder instability. The authors recommend recording the shoulder's range of motion measurements according to the Upper Extremity Impairment Evaluation Record in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition.

Evaluating Shoulder Impairment

1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Richard T. Katz ◽  
Sankar Perraraju
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Sensory Loss ◽  
Motor Deficits ◽  
Nerve Lesion ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Specific Patient ◽  
Industrial Medicine ◽  
Shoulder Motion ◽  
Upper Extremity Impairment

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fourth Edition, offers several categories to describe impairment in the shoulder, including shoulder amputation, abnormal shoulder motion, peripheral nerve disorders, subluxation/dislocation, and joint arthroplasty. This article clarifies appropriate methods for rating shoulder impairment in a specific patient, particularly with reference to the AMA Guides, Section 3.1j, Shoulder, Section 3.1k, Impairment of the Upper Extremity Due to Peripheral Nerve Disorders, and Section 3.1m, Impairment Due to Other Disorders of the Upper Extremity. A table shows shoulder motions and associated degrees of motion and can be used in assessing abnormal range of motion. Assessments of shoulder impairment due to peripheral nerve lesion also requires assessment of sensory loss (or presence of nerve pain) or motor deficits, and these may be categorized to the level of the spinal nerves (C5 to T1). Table 23 is useful regarding impairment from persistent joint subluxation or dislocation, and Table 27 can be helpful in assessing impairment of the upper extremity after arthroplasty of specific bones of joints. Although inter-rater reliability has been reasonably good, the validity of the upper extremity impairment rating has been questioned, and further research in industrial medicine and physical disability is required.

Analyse von Querschnittsdaten zur Intelligenzentwicklung im Erwachsenenalter: eine Studie zur deutschsprachigen Version der WAIS-IV

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 149-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Daseking ◽  
Franz Petermann
Keyword(s):  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Adult Intelligence Scale ◽  
Intelligence Scale ◽  
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale ◽  
Adult Intelligence ◽  
Wechsler Adult Intelligence ◽  
Deutschsprachige Version

Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird der Datensatz (N = 1664), aus dem auch die Normstichprobe für die deutschsprachige Version der Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) gezogen wurde, nach altersabhängigen Veränderungen kognitiver Fähigkeiten analysiert. Die niedrigsten Rohwertmittelwerte werden in der ältesten Altersgruppe erreicht, die Leistungsspitzen finden sich überwiegend im Altersbereich zwischen 20 und 29 Jahren. In den Untertests der Indizes Wahrnehmungsgebundenes Logisches Denken und Verarbeitungsgeschwindigkeit kommt es zu einer bedeutsamen Leistungsabnahme mit zunehmendem Alter: In der ältesten Altersgruppe werden nur noch zwischen 50 und 60 % der Rohwertmittelwerte der leistungsstärksten Altersgruppe erreicht. Gleichzeitig nimmt die Heterogenität in der Rohwertverteilung zu. Für die Indizes Sprachverständnis und Arbeitsgedächtnis fallen beide Effekte deutlich niedriger aus.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document