Basso D M, Beattie M S, Bresnahan J C, Anderson D K, Faden A I, Gruner J A, Holford T R, Hsu C Y, Noble L J, Nockels R, Perot P L, Salzman S K, Young W
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.
J Neurotrauma. 1996 Jul;13(7):343-59. doi: 10.1089/neu.1996.13.343.
The Multicenter Animal Spinal Cord Injury Study (MASCIS) adopted a modified 21-point open field locomotor scale developed by Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan (BBB) at Ohio State University (OSU) to measure motor recovery in spinal-injured rats. BBB scores categorize combinations of rat hindlimb movements, trunk position and stability, stepping, coordination, paw placement, toe clearance, and tail position, representing sequential recovery stages that rats attain after spinal cord injury. A total of 22 observers from 8 participating centers assessed 18 hindlimbs of 9 rats at 2-6 weeks after graded spinal cord injury. The observers were segregated into 10 teams. The teams were grouped into 3 cohorts (A, B, and C), consisting of one experienced team from OSU and two non-OSU teams. The cohorts evaluated the rats in three concurrent and sequential sessions. After viewing a rat for 4 min, individual observers first assigned scores without discussion. Members of each team then discussed and assigned a team score. Experience (OSU vs. non-OSU) and teamwork (individual vs. team) had no significant effect on mean scores although the mean scores of one cohort differed significantly from the others (p = 0.0002, ANOVA). However, experience and teamwork significantly influenced reliability of scoring. OSU team scores had a mean standard deviation or discordance of 0.59 points, significantly less than 1.31 points for non-OSU team scores (p = 0.003, ANOVA) and 1.30 points for non-OSU individual scores (p = 0.001, ANOVA). Discordances were greater at the upper and lower ends of the scale, exceeding 2.0 in the lower (< 5) and upper (> 15) ends of the scale but were < 1.0 for scores between 4 and 16. Comparisons of non-OSU and OSU team scores indicated a high reliability coefficient of 0.892 and a correlation index (r2) of 0.894. These results indicate that inexperienced observers can learn quickly to assign consistent BBB scores that approach those given by experienced teams, that the scores are most consistent between 4 and 16, and that experience improves consistency of team scores.
多中心动物脊髓损伤研究（MASCIS）采用了由俄亥俄州立大学（OSU）的巴索、比蒂和布雷斯纳汉（BBB）开发的改良版21分旷场运动量表，来测量脊髓损伤大鼠的运动恢复情况。BBB评分对大鼠后肢运动、躯干位置和稳定性、迈步、协调性、爪放置、脚趾离地间隙以及尾巴位置的组合进行分类，代表大鼠脊髓损伤后所达到的连续恢复阶段。来自8个参与中心的22名观察者在分级脊髓损伤后2至6周评估了9只大鼠的18只后肢。观察者被分成10个小组。这些小组被分为3个队列（A、B和C），由OSU的一个经验丰富的小组和两个非OSU小组组成。这些队列在三个同时进行且连续的时间段内对大鼠进行评估。在观察一只大鼠4分钟后，个体观察者首先在不讨论的情况下给出评分。然后每个小组的成员进行讨论并给出小组评分。经验（OSU与非OSU）和团队协作（个体评分与小组评分）对平均分没有显著影响，尽管一个队列的平均分与其他队列有显著差异（p = 0.0002，方差分析）。然而，经验和团队协作对评分的可靠性有显著影响。OSU小组评分的平均标准差或不一致性为0.59分，显著低于非OSU小组评分的1.分（p = 0.003，方差分析）和非OSU个体评分的1.30分（p = 0.001，方差分析）。量表上下两端的不一致性更大，在量表下端（<5）和上端（>15）超过2.0，但在4至16分之间的评分不一致性<1.0。非OSU小组评分与OSU小组评分的比较表明可靠性系数高达(0.892)，相关指数（(r^2)）为(0.894)。这些结果表明，缺乏经验的观察者可以快速学会给出一致且接近经验丰富小组的BBB评分，评分在4至16分之间最为一致，并且经验可以提高小组评分的一致性。
