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.

scholarly journals Relative and Absolute Reliability of a Vertical Numerical Pain Rating Scale Supplemented With a Faces Pain Scale After Stroke

2014 ◽  
Vol 94 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li-ling Chuang ◽  
Ching-yi Wu ◽  
Keh-chung Lin ◽  
Ching-ju Hsieh
Keyword(s):  
Rating Scale ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Pain Scale ◽  
Repeated Measurements ◽  
Limits Of Agreement ◽  
Numerical Pain Rating Scale ◽  
Standard Error Of Measurement ◽  
Pain Rating Scale ◽  
Absolute Reliability ◽  
Error Of Measurement

BackgroundPain is a serious adverse complication after stroke. The combination of a vertical numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) and a faces pain scale (FPS) has been advocated to measure pain after stroke.ObjectiveThis study was conducted to investigate whether an NPRS supplemented with an FPS (NPRS-FPS) would show good test-retest reliability in people with stroke. The relative and absolute reliability of the NPRS-FPS were examined.DesignA test-retest design was used for this study.MethodsFifty people (>3 months after stroke) participating in an outpatient occupational therapy program were recruited through medical centers to rate current pain intensity twice, at a 1-week interval, with the NPRS-FPS (on a scale from 0 to 10). The relative reliability of the NPRS-FPS was analyzed with the intraclass correlation coefficient for determining the degree of consistency and agreement between 2 measures. The standard error of measurement, the smallest real difference, and Bland-Altman limits of agreement were the absolute reliability indexes used to quantify measurement errors and determine systematic biases of repeated measurements.ResultsThe relative reliability of the NPRS-FPS was substantial (intraclass correlation coefficient=.82). The standard error of measurement and the smallest real difference at the 90% confidence interval of the NPRS-FPS were 0.81 and 1.87, respectively. The Bland-Altman analyses revealed no significant systematic bias between repeated measurements for the NPRS-FPS. The range of the limits of agreement for the NPRS-FPS was narrow (−2.50 to 1.90), indicating a high level of stability and little variation over time.LimitationsThe pain intensity of the participants ranged from no pain to a moderate level of pain.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that the NPRS-FPS is a reliable measure of pain in people with stroke, with good relative and absolute reliability.

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 the Mini-BESTest in People With Mild to Moderate Multiple Sclerosis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Wallin ◽  
M Kierkegaard ◽  
E Franzén ◽  
S Johansson
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Measurement Errors ◽  
Balance Control ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Repeated Measurements ◽  
Minimal Detectable Change ◽  
Detectable Change ◽  
Limits Of Agreement ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Abstract Objective The mini-BESTest is a balance measure for assessment of the underlying physiological systems for balance control in adults. Evaluations of test–retest reliability of the mini-BESTest in larger samples of people with multiple sclerosis (MS) are lacking. The purpose of this study was to investigate test–retest reliability of the mini-BESTest total and section sum scores and individual items in people with mild to moderate overall MS disability. Methods This study used a test–retest design in a movement laboratory setting. Fifty-four people with mild to moderate overall MS disability according to the Expanded Disability Status scale (EDSS) were included, with 28 in the mild subgroup (EDSS 2.0–3.5) and 26 in the moderate subgroup (EDSS 4.0–5.5). Test–retest reliability of the mini-BESTest was evaluated by repeated measurements taken 1 week apart. Reliability and measurement error were analyzed. Results Test–retest reliability for the total scores were considered good to excellent, with intraclass correlation coefficients of .88 for the whole sample, .83 for the mild MS subgroup, and .80 for the moderate MS subgroup. Measurement errors were small, with standard error of measurement and minimal detectable change of 1.3 and 3.5, respectively, in mild MS, and 1.7 and 4.7, respectively, in moderate MS. The limits of agreement were − 3.4 and 4.6. Test–retest reliability for the section scores were fair to good or excellent; weighted kappa values ranged from .62 to .83. All items but 1 showed fair to good or excellent test–retest reliability, and percentage agreement ranged from 61% to 100%. Conclusions The mini-BESTest demonstrated good to excellent test–retest reliability and small measurement errors and is recommended for use in people with mild to moderate MS. Impact Knowledge of limits of agreement and minimal detectable change contribute to interpretability of the mini-BESTest total score. The findings of this study enhance the clinical usefulness of the test for evaluation of balance control and for designing individually customized balance training with high precision and accuracy in people with MS.

scholarly journals One-year test-retest reliability of ten vision tests in Canadian athletes

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 1032
Author(s):  
Mehdi Aloosh ◽  
Suzanne Leclerc ◽  
Stephanie Long ◽  
Guowei Zhong ◽  
James M. Brophy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Limits Of Agreement ◽  
Male Athletes ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Concussion Management ◽  
Baseline Testing ◽  
One Year ◽  
The One ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Background: Vision tests are increasingly being suggested for use in concussion management and baseline testing. Concussions, however, often occur months after baseline testing and reliability studies generally examine intervals limited to days or one week. Therefore, our objective was to determine the one-year test-retest reliability of these tests. Methods: We assessed one-year test-retest reliability of ten vision tests in elite Canadian athletes followed by the Institut National du Sport du Quebec. We included athletes who completed two baseline (preseason) annual evaluations by one clinician within 365±30 days. We excluded athletes with any concussion or vision training in between the annual evaluations or presented with any factor that is believed to affect the tests (e.g. migraines, etc.). Data were collected from clinical charts. We evaluated test-retest reliability using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Results: We examined nine female and seven male athletes with a mean age of 22.7 (SD 4.5) years. Among the vision tests, we observed excellent test-retest reliability in Positive Fusional Vergence at 30cm (ICC=0.93) but this dropped to 0.55 when an outlier was excluded in a sensitivity analysis. There was good to moderate reliability in Negative Fusional Vergence at 30cm (ICC=0.78), Phoria at 30cm (ICC=0.68), Near Point of Convergence break (ICC=0.65) and Saccade (ICC=0.56). The ICC for Positive Fusional Vergence at 3m (ICC=0.56) also decreased to 0.21 after removing one outlier. We found poor reliability in Near Point of Convergence (ICC=0.47), Gross Stereoscopic Acuity (ICC=0.03) and Negative Fusional Vergence at 3m (ICC=0.0). ICC for Phoria at 3m was not appropriate because scores were identical in 14/16 athletes. 95% LoA of the majority of tests were ±40% to ±90%. Conclusions: Four tests had moderate one-year test-retest reliability. The remaining tests had poor reliability. The tests would therefore be useful only if concussion has a moderate-large effect on scores.

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 One-year test-retest reliability of ten vision tests in Canadian athletes

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 1032
Author(s):  
Mehdi Aloosh ◽  
Suzanne Leclerc ◽  
Stephanie Long ◽  
Guowei Zhong ◽  
James M. Brophy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Limits Of Agreement ◽  
Male Athletes ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Concussion Management ◽  
Baseline Testing ◽  
One Year ◽  
The One ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Background: Vision tests are used in concussion management and baseline testing. Concussions, however, often occur months after baseline testing and reliability studies generally examine intervals limited to days or one week. Our objective was to determine the one-year test-retest reliability of these tests. Methods: We assessed one-year test-retest reliability of ten vision tests in elite Canadian athletes followed by the Institut National du Sport du Quebec. We included athletes who completed two baseline (preseason) annual evaluations by one clinician within 365±30 days. We excluded athletes with any concussion or vision training in between the annual evaluations or presented with any factor that is believed to affect the tests (e.g. migraines). Data were collected from clinical charts. We evaluated test-retest reliability using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Results: We examined nine female and seven male athletes with a mean age of 22.7 (SD 4.5) years. Among the vision tests, we observed excellent test-retest reliability in Positive Fusional Vergence at 30cm (ICC=0.93) but this dropped to 0.53 when an outlier was excluded in a sensitivity analysis. There was good to moderate reliability in Negative Fusional Vergence at 30cm (ICC=0.78), Phoria at 30cm (ICC=0.68), Near Point of Convergence break (ICC=0.65) and Saccades (ICC=0.61). The ICC for Positive Fusional Vergence at 3m (ICC=0.56) also decreased to 0.45 after removing two outliers. We found poor reliability in Near Point of Convergence (ICC=0.47), Gross Stereoscopic Acuity (ICC=0.03) and Negative Fusional Vergence at 3m (ICC=0.0). ICC for Phoria at 3m was not appropriate because scores were identical in 14/16 athletes. 95% LoA of the majority of tests were ±40% to ±90%. Conclusions: Five tests had good to moderate one-year test-retest reliability. The remaining tests had poor reliability. The tests would therefore be useful only if concussion has a moderate-large effect on scores.

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 One-year test-retest reliability of ten vision tests in Canadian athletes

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 1032
Author(s):  
Mehdi Aloosh ◽  
Suzanne Leclerc ◽  
Stephanie Long ◽  
Guowei Zhong ◽  
James M. Brophy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Limits Of Agreement ◽  
Male Athletes ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Concussion Management ◽  
Baseline Testing ◽  
One Year ◽  
The One ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Background: Vision tests are used in concussion management and baseline testing. Concussions, however, often occur months after baseline testing and reliability studies generally examine intervals limited to days or one week. Our objective was to determine the one-year test-retest reliability of these tests. Methods: We assessed one-year test-retest reliability of ten vision tests in elite Canadian athletes followed by the Institut National du Sport du Quebec. We included athletes who completed two baseline (preseason) annual evaluations by one clinician within 365±30 days. We excluded athletes with any concussion or vision training in between the annual evaluations or presented with any factor that is believed to affect the tests (e.g. migraines). Data were collected from clinical charts. We evaluated test-retest reliability using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Results: We examined nine female and seven male athletes with a mean age of 22.7 (SD 4.5) years. Among the vision tests, we observed excellent test-retest reliability in Positive Fusional Vergence at 30cm (ICC=0.93) but this dropped to 0.55 when an outlier was excluded in a sensitivity analysis. There was good to moderate reliability in Negative Fusional Vergence at 30cm (ICC=0.78), Phoria at 30cm (ICC=0.68), Near Point of Convergence break (ICC=0.65) and Saccade (ICC=0.56). The ICC for Positive Fusional Vergence at 3m (ICC=0.56) also decreased to 0.21 after removing one outlier. We found poor reliability in Near Point of Convergence (ICC=0.47), Gross Stereoscopic Acuity (ICC=0.03) and Negative Fusional Vergence at 3m (ICC=0.0). ICC for Phoria at 3m was not appropriate because scores were identical in 14/16 athletes. 95% LoA of the majority of tests were ±40% to ±90%. Conclusions: Five tests had good to moderate one-year test-retest reliability. The remaining tests had poor reliability. The tests would therefore be useful only if concussion has a moderate-large effect on scores.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document