scholarly journals The Isometric Horizontal Push Test: Test–Retest Reliability and Validation Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 581-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Dello Iacono ◽  
Stephanie Valentin ◽  
Mark Sanderson ◽  
Israel Halperin
Keyword(s):  
Strain Gauge ◽  
Standard Error ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Force Plate ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Peak Force ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Standard Error Of Measurement ◽  
Error Of Measurement

Purpose: To investigate the test–retest reliability and criterion validity of the isometric horizontal push test (IHPT), a newly designed test that selectively measures the horizontal component of maximal isometric force. Methods: Twenty-four active males with ≥3 years of resistance training experience performed 2 testing sessions of the IHPT, separated by 3 to 4 days of rest. In each session, subjects performed 3 maximal trials of the IHPT with 3 minutes of rest between them. The peak force outputs were collected simultaneously using a strain gauge and the criterion equipment consisting of a floor-embedded force plate. Results: The test–retest reliability of peak force values was nearly perfect (intraclass correlation coefficient = ∼.99). Bland–Altman analysis showed excellent agreement between days with nearly no bias for strain gauge 1.2 N (95% confidence interval [CI], −3 to 6 N) and force plate 0.8 N (95% CI, −4 to 6 N). A nearly perfect correlation was observed between the strain gauge and force plate (r = .98, P < .001), with a small bias of 8 N (95% CI, 1.2 to 15 N) in favor of the force plate. The sensitivity of the IHPT was also good, with smallest worthwhile change greater than standard error of measurement for both the strain gauge (smallest worthwhile change: 29 N; standard error of measurement: 17 N; 95% CI, 14 to 20 N) and the force plate (smallest worthwhile change: 29 N; standard error of measurement: 18 N; 95% CI, 14 to 19 N) devices. Conclusions: The high degree of validity, reliability, and sensitivity of the IHPT, coupled with its affordability, portability, ease of use, and time efficacy, point to the potential of the test for assessment and monitoring purposes.

scholarly journals Test–Retest Reliability of the Total Motion Release® Scale

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Emilie N. Miley ◽  
Ashley J. Reeves ◽  
Madeline P. Casanova ◽  
Nickolai J.P. Martonick ◽  
Jayme Baker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Standard Error ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
The Body ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Standard Error Of Measurement ◽  
Error Of Measurement

Context: Total Motion Release® (TMR®) is a novel treatment paradigm used to restore asymmetries in the body (eg, pain, tightness, limited range of motion). Six primary movements, known as the Fab 6, are performed by the patient and scored using a 0 to 100 scale. Clinicians currently utilize the TMR® scale to modify treatment, assess patient progress, and measure treatment effectiveness; however, the reliability of the TMR® scale has not been determined. It is imperative to assess scale reliability and establish minimal detectable change (MDC) values to guide clinical practice. Objective: To assess the reliability of the TMR® scale and establish MDC values for each motion in healthy individuals in a group setting. Design: Retrospective analysis of group TMR® assessments. Setting: University classroom. Participants: A convenience sample of 61 students (23 males and 38 females; 25.48 [5.73] y), with (n = 31) and without (n = 30) previous exposure to TMR®. Intervention: The TMR® Fab 6 movements were tested at 2 time points, 2 hours apart. A clinician with previous training in TMR® led participant groups through both sessions while participants recorded individual motion scores using the 0 to 100 TMR® scale. Test–retest reliability was calculated using an intraclass correlation coefficient (2,1) for inexperienced, experienced, and combined student groups. Standard error of measurement and MDC values were also assessed for each intraclass correlation coefficient. Outcome Measure: Self-reported scores on the TMR® scale. Results: Test–retest reliability ranged from 0.57 to 0.95 across the Fab 6 movements, standard error of measurement values ranged from 4.85 to 11.77, and MDC values ranged from 13.45 to 32.62. Conclusion: The results indicate moderate to excellent reliability across the Fab 6 movements and a range of MDC values. Although this study is the first step in assessing the reliability of the TMR® scale for clinical practice, caution is warranted until further research is completed to establish reliability and MDC values of the TMR® scale in various settings to better guide patient care.

Test–Retest Reliability of Skill Tests in the F-MARC Battery for Youth Soccer Players

2019 ◽  
Vol 126 (5) ◽  
pp. 1006-1023 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexis Padrón-Cabo ◽  
Ezequiel Rey ◽  
Alexandra Pérez-Ferreirós ◽  
Anton Kalén
Keyword(s):  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Young Male ◽  
Soccer Players ◽  
Limits Of Agreement ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Youth Soccer ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Standard Error Of Measurement ◽  
Absolute Reliability ◽  
Error Of Measurement

This study aimed to evaluate the test–retest reliability of soccer skill tests belonging to the F-MARC test battery. To avoid bias during talent identification and development, coaches and scouts should be using reliable tests for assessing soccer-specific skills in young male players. Fifty-two U-14 outfield male soccer players performed F-MARC soccer skill tests on two occasions, separated by 7 days. After familiarization, we administered two trial sessions of five skill tests: speed dribbling, juggling, shooting, passing, and heading. We assessed absolute reliability by expressing the standard error of measurement as a coefficient of variation with 95% limits of agreement, and we assessed relative reliability with the intraclass correlation coefficient and with Pearson’s correlation ( r). The results demonstrated satisfactory relative and absolute reliability for speed dribbling, right foot juggling, short passing, shooting a dead ball right, shooting from a pass, heading in front, and heading right. However, reliability values for left foot juggling, chest-head-foot juggling, head-left-foot-right foot-chest-head juggling, long pass, and shooting a dead ball left tests were not strong enough to suggest their usage by coaches in training or sport scientists in research.

Assessment of Knee Laxity Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

1993 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly R. Holcomb ◽  
Cheryl A. Skaggs ◽  
Teddy W. Worrell ◽  
Mark DeCarlo ◽  
K. Donald Shelbourne
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Standard Error ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Knee Laxity ◽  
Testing Procedures ◽  
Kt 1000 ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Standard Error Of Measurement ◽  
Error Of Measurement

A paucity of information exists concerning reliability of the KT-1000 knee arthrometer (MEDmetric Corp., San Diego, CA) when used by different clinicians to assess the same anterior cruciate ligament-deficient patient. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability and standard error of measurement of four clinicians who routinely report KT-1000 arthrometer values to referring orthopedic surgeons. Two physical therapists and two athletic trainers performed anterior laxity tests using the KT-1000 on 19 subjects. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM) were used to determine reliability. Intratester ICC ranged from .98 to 1.0 and intratesterSEMranged from 0.0 to .28 mm. Intertester ICC andSEMfor all four testers were .53 and 1.2 mm, respectively. A 95% confidence interval (M ± 1.96 ×SEM) of the intertester variability ranged from −0.18 to 4.52 mm. Therefore, large intertester variation existed in KT-1000 values. Each facility should standardize testing procedures and establish intratester and intertester reliability for all clinicians reporting KT-1000 values.

scholarly journals Reliability of the Polar Vantage M Sports Watch when Measuring Heart Rate at Different Treadmill Exercise Intensities

Sports ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 117
Author(s):  
Mike Climstein ◽  
Jessica L. Alder ◽  
Alyce M. Brooker ◽  
Elissa J. Cartwright ◽  
Kevin Kemp-Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Rate ◽  
Treadmill Exercise ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Good Test ◽  
Good Reliability ◽  
Measurement Variability ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Activity Monitors ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Standard Error Of Measurement

Background: Usage of wrist-worn activity monitors has rapidly increased in recent years, and these devices are being used by both fitness enthusiasts and in clinical populations. We, therefore, assessed the test–retest reliability of the Polar Vantage M (PVM) watch when measuring heart rate (HR) during various treadmill exercise intensities. Methods: HR was measured every 30 s (simultaneous electrocardiography (ECG) and PVM). Test–retest reliability was determined using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest real difference (SRD) were used to determine measurement variability. Results: A total of 29 participants completed the trials. ICC values for PVM during stages 1, 2 and 5 demonstrated good to excellent test–retest reliability (0.78, 0.78 and 0.92; 95% CI (0.54–0.90, 0.54–0.9, 0.79–0.97)). For PVM during stages 0 (rest), 3 and 4, the ICC values indicated poor to good reliability (0.42, 0.68 and 0.58; 95% CI (−0.27–0.73, 0.32–0.85, 0.14–0.80)). Conclusion: This study identified that the test–retest reliability of the PVM was comparable at low and high exercise intensities; however, it revealed a poor to good test–retest reliability at moderate intensities. The PVM should not be used in a clinical setting where monitoring of an accurate HR is crucial to the patients’ safety.

scholarly journals Measurement of Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction: A Multicenter Intertester Reliability Study

1999 ◽  
Vol 79 (12) ◽  
pp. 1134-1141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet K Freburger ◽  
Daniel L Riddle
Keyword(s):  
Standard Error ◽  
Sacroiliac Joint ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Kappa Coefficient ◽  
Outpatient Clinics ◽  
Reliability Study ◽  
Kappa Value ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Standard Error Of Measurement ◽  
Error Of Measurement

Abstract Background and Purpose. Previous research suggests that visual estimates of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) alignment are unreliable. The purpose of this study was to determine whether handheld calipers and an inclinometer could be used to obtain reliable measurements of SIJ alignment in subjects suspected of having SIJ dysfunction. Subjects. Seventy-three subjects, evaluated at 1 of 5 outpatient clinics, participated in the study. Methods. A total of 23 therapists, randomly paired for each subject, served as examiners. The angle of inclination of each innominate was measured while the subject was standing. The position of the innominates relative to each other was then derived. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the standard error of measurement (SEM), and a kappa coefficient were calculated to examine the reliability of the derived measurements. Results. The ICC was .27, the SEM was 5.4 degrees, and the kappa value was .18. Conclusion and Discussion. Measurements of SIJ alignment were unreliable. Therapists should consider procedures other than those that assess SIJ alignment when evaluating the SIJ.

scholarly journals Test–Retest Reliability of a New Device Versus a Long-Arm Goniometer to Evaluate Knee Proprioception

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Fei Tian ◽  
Yaqi Zhao ◽  
Jixin Li ◽  
Wenjin Wang ◽  
Danni Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Standard Error ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Joint Position Sense ◽  
Repeated Measurements ◽  
Good Reliability ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
New Device ◽  
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Context: Many methods used to evaluate knee proprioception have shortcomings that limit their use in clinical settings. Based on an inexpensive 3D camera, a new portable device was recently used to evaluate the joint position sense (JPS) of the knee joint. However, the test–retest reliability of the new method remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the test–retest reliability of the new device and a long-arm goniometer for assessing knee JPS, and to compare the variability of the 2 methods. Design: Prospective observational study of the test–retest reliability of knee JPS measurements. Methods: Twenty-one healthy adults were tested in 2 sessions with a 1-week interval. Three target knee flexion angles (30°, 45°, and 60°) were reproduced in each session. Target and reproduced angles were measured with both methods. Intraclass correlation coefficients, standard error of the measurement, and Bland–Altman plots were used to quantify test–retest reliability. Paired t tests were used to compare knee JPS (absolute error of the target-reproduced angle) between the methods. Results: The new device (good to excellent intraclass correlation coefficients .74–.80; standard error of the measurement 0.52°–0.61°) demonstrated better test–retest reliability than the goniometer (poor to fair intraclass correlation coefficients .23–.43; standard error of the measurement 0.89°–2.07°) and better test–retest agreement (respective mean differences for the 30°, 45°, and 60° knee angles: 0.11°, 0.13°, and 0.41° for the new system; 0.84°, 1.52°, and 1.18° for the goniometer). The measurements (absolute errors of the target-reproduced angles) with the goniometer were significantly greater than those with the new device (P < .05); the SDs of repeated measurements with the goniometer (1.50°–2.41°) were greater than with the new device (1.08°–1.38°). Conclusions: Given that the new device has good reliability and sufficient precision, it is the better alternative for evaluating knee JPS. Goniometers should be used with caution to assess knee JPS.

Identifying reliable change in tactile temporal thresholds in multiple sclerosis: test-retest reliability

2006 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 573-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
L N Brown ◽  
L M Metz ◽  
M Eliasziw
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Measurement Error ◽  
Corpus Callosum ◽  
Validation Study ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Real Change ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Standard Error Of Measurement ◽  
Error Of Measurement

Background Tactile temporal thresholds are typically significantly higher (ie, prolonged) in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients when compared to controls and increase significantly during relapses, probably reflecting integrity of conduction across a portion of the corpus callosum. As part of an ongoing validation study of tactile temporal thresholds, the test-retest reliability of these thresholds was examined in patients with MS. Methods Tactile temporal thresholds were measured in 61 MS patients during two separate test sessions within three weeks. Test-retest reliability and the standard error of measurement were calculated. The threshold of change in tactile temporal thresholds in MS patients that would correspond to real change beyond measurement error with 95% certainty was also calculated. Results The test-retest reliability of this measure of tactile temporal thresholds was 0.93. The threshold indicating change beyond chance or measurement error with 95% certainty was 19 ms. Conclusions This measure of tactile temporal thresholds has excellent test - retest reliability and a change of greater than 19 ms is highly likely to represent real change. This measure is promising as a precise, reliable outcome measure in MS.

scholarly journals Upper-Extremity Volume Measurements in Women With Lymphedema: A Comparison of Measurements Obtained Via Water Displacement With Geometrically Determined Volume

2002 ◽  
Vol 82 (12) ◽  
pp. 1201-1212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoinette P Sander ◽  
Nicole M Hajer ◽  
Kristie Hemenway ◽  
Amy C Miller
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Standard Error ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Water Displacement ◽  
Volume Measurements ◽  
Water Volumes ◽  
Standard Error Of Measurement ◽  
Error Of Measurement

Abstract Background and Purpose. Upper-extremity (UE) swelling following breast cancer treatment is a frequent manifestation of lymphedema. In order to document outcomes from lymphedema treatments, reliable, valid, and practical measurements of UE swelling are necessary. The purpose of this study was to compare geometric methods of determining UE volumes with water displacement methods. Subjects. The edematous hand, forearm, and upper arm of 50 women with UE swelling secondary to lymphedema were measured. Methods. Upper-extremity volumes were determined by water displacement using arm and hand volumeters. Displaced water was weighed to determine volume. Circumferential girth measurements were taken. Width and depth measurements of the hand were taken with a tension-controlled caliper. Geometric volume formulas for a cylinder, frustum, rectangular solid, and trapezoidal solid were used to calculate volumes of the arm and hand at different measurement intervals. Results. Intraclass correlation coefficients [2,1] for interrater and intrarater reliability of all water and geometric measurements of the arm and hand were .91 to .99 and .92 to .99, respectively. Water displacement correlated with geometric measurements in the arm (r=.97–.98) and in the hand (r=.81–.91). The limits of agreement (LOA) indicated that water and geometric measurements of arm volume differed by 479 to 655 mL. Scatterplots of the LOA data indicated in that geometric volumes were either larger or smaller than water volumes. The smallest standard error of measurement for the arm measurements was for the 6-cm frustum method at 115 mL; for the hand measurements, the smallest standard error of measurement was for the frustum method at 16 mL. Discussion and Conclusion. Volume of an edematous UE calculated by geometric formulas correlated strongly with volume determined by water displacement. Although strongly correlated, the measurements obtained by the 2 methods did not agree.

Intrarater and Interrater Reliability of First Metatarsophalangeal Joint Dorsiflexion

2012 ◽  
Vol 102 (4) ◽  
pp. 290-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela M. Jones ◽  
Sarah A. Curran
Keyword(s):  
Standard Error ◽  
Interrater Reliability ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Metatarsophalangeal Joint ◽  
Visual Estimation ◽  
First Metatarsophalangeal Joint ◽  
Real Size ◽  
Continued Use ◽  
Standard Error Of Measurement ◽  
Error Of Measurement

Background: Visual estimation (VE) and goniometric measurement (GM) are commonly used to assess first metatarsophalangeal joint dorsiflexion. The purposes of this study were to determine the intrarater and interrater reliability of VE and GM and to establish whether reliability was influenced by the experience of the examiner. Methods: Ten experienced and ten inexperienced examiners evaluated three real-size photographs of a first metatarsophalangeal joint positioned in various degrees of dorsiflexion on two separate occasions. Results: Experienced examiners demonstrated excellent intrarater and interrater reliability for GM (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], &gt;0.953; standard error of measurement [SEM], 1.8°–2.5°) compared with inexperienced examiners, who showed fair-to-good intrarater and interrater reliability (ICC, 0.322–0.597; SEM, 2.0°–3.0°). For VE, inexperienced examiners demonstrated fair-to-good interrater and excellent intra-rater reliability (ICC, 0.666–0.808), which was higher compared with experienced examiners (ICC, 0.167–0.672). The SEM (2.8°–4.4°) was less varied than that of experienced examiners (SEM, 3.8°–6.4°) for VE, but neither group’s SEMs were clinically acceptable. Conclusions: Although minimal differences between intrarater and interrater reliability of GM and VE are noted, this study suggests that GM is more reliable than VE is when used by experienced examiners. These findings support the continued use of GM for first metatarsophalangeal joint dorsiflexion assessment. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 102(4): 290–298, 2012)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document