Motor Assessment Scale
Also known as: MAS
The Motor Assessment Scale (MAS) is a clinician-rated, performance-based measure of motor function specifically developed for stroke survivors. Created by Carr, Shepherd, and colleagues (1985) at the University of Sydney, the MAS evaluates 8 fundamental motor tasks reflecting functional mobility and motor control relevant to post-stroke recovery. The MAS has become a standard outcome measure in stroke rehabilitation research and clinical practice, widely used to assess and track motor recovery following acute and chronic stroke.
Read the full method
Sign in with a free account to read this section.
Method map
The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.
When to use it
The MAS is indicated for individuals with stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) at any phase—acute (days post-event), subacute (weeks), or chronic (months to years). It is particularly useful in acute rehabilitation settings (inpatient stroke units, rehabilitation hospitals) where frequent reassessment guides therapy intensity and discharge planning. The MAS is also valuable in clinical trials evaluating stroke rehabilitation interventions (physical therapy, pharmacological, neuromodulation). It is appropriate for adults of any age. The MAS can be adapted for other neurological conditions causing motor impairment (traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, Parkinson disease, multiple sclerosis), though it was specifically validated in stroke. The MAS is less suitable for individuals with severe cognitive impairment or communication disorders that prevent understanding of task instructions.
Strengths & limitations
- Stroke-specific: Developed for and validated in stroke survivors; items directly reflect functional recovery priorities post-stroke.
- Functional focus: All 8 items represent realistic mobility and motor tasks (ADLs, functional movement); reflects real-world motor recovery.
- Quick administration: Typically 10–15 minutes; feasible for busy rehabilitation settings.
- Simple scoring: Straightforward 0–6 scale per item; no complex calculations or special equipment.
- Standardized, reliable: Clear task descriptions and rating criteria ensure consistency; high inter-rater and test–retest reliability.
- Responsive to change: Sensitive to motor recovery over days and weeks; widely used in outcome studies documenting responsiveness.
- Hierarchical structure: Items progress from basic (supine-to-sit) to complex (stair climbing), reflecting natural recovery progression.
- Clinician-rated: Objective observation reduces self-report bias compared to questionnaire-based measures.
- Requires trained examiner: Clinician must be present to observe and rate performance; not suitable for self-administered or remote assessment.
- Limited upper extremity assessment: Only 2 of 8 items focus on upper extremity (reaching); limited detail on hand/arm fine motor control.
- Limited responsiveness in chronic stages: In individuals years post-stroke with stable motor function, ceiling effects may reduce sensitivity to small gains.
- Categorical scoring (0-6) may lack precision: Small variations in performance quality may not be fully captured in discrete rating categories.
- Environmental constraints: Requires space and equipment (bed, chair, stairs, objects); some clinical settings may not have standardized testing environment.
- Does not measure strength or ROM in isolation: Focuses on functional movement, not isolated strength or range of motion; supplementary tests needed.
- Language/cognition dependent: Clients must understand task instructions; severe aphasia or cognitive impairment may limit utility.
- Variability in published versions: Some versions use 0–5 or 0–4 scales, creating comparability challenges across sites.
Frequently asked
What is the difference between MAS and the Berg Balance Scale (BBS)?
The MAS is a 8-item functional motor assessment covering supine-to-sit, standing, walking, stairs, and reaching; it includes some balance items but is not balance-specific. The BBS is a 14-item balance and fall risk assessment designed specifically for older adults and fall-risk screening. The MAS is broader in motor recovery assessment; the BBS is narrower and more balance-focused. Both are commonly used in stroke rehabilitation; clinicians often use both to comprehensively assess motor and balance recovery.
Can MAS be used in non-stroke populations?
The MAS was developed for stroke but has been applied and validated in other neurological conditions causing motor impairment, including traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, and Parkinson disease. However, validation in non-stroke populations is less extensive. Clinicians should note that items (e.g., supine-to-sit) are stroke-recovery-oriented; adaptation may be needed for populations with different impairment patterns.
What is a clinically meaningful change in MAS score?
A total MAS change of ≥5–6 points is generally considered clinically meaningful in stroke populations. Early post-stroke (first month), improvements of 10–20 points are typical. Individual item improvements are also informative; moving from rating '2' to '4' on a specific item reflects notable functional gain. The significance of change depends on baseline and phase of recovery; rapid gains early are expected, but 2–3 point gains in chronic phases may indicate important functional improvement.
Is special training or certification required to administer the MAS?
Formal certification is not required, but training is strongly recommended. Clinicians should review the MAS manual, understand the 0–6 rating scale and specific criteria for each item, and ideally practice administration with a trained assessor. Inconsistent administration (e.g., variable task setup, incomplete observation) reduces reliability; well-trained examiners ensure consistent scores across time and sites.
Can MAS be administered remotely or via telehealth?
Standard MAS administration requires the clinician to be present to observe movement quality in detail, time performance, and provide appropriate setup (bed, chair, stairs). Remote administration is not recommended for research rigor; however, some clinicians have adapted MAS for video-based observation in chronic stroke monitoring. Video-based versions lack standardization and should be noted when reported.
Sources
- Carr, J. H., Shepherd, R. B., Nordholm, L., & Lynne, D. (1985). Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Physical Therapy, 65(2), 175-180. DOI: 10.1093/ptj/65.2.175 ↗
- Carr, J. H., & Shepherd, R. B. (2010). Neurological rehabilitation: Optimizing motor performance (2nd ed.). Churchill Livingstone Elsevier. link ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Motor Assessment Scale. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/occupational-therapy/motor-assessment-scale
Which method?
Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.
Compare side by side →