Structural Validity of the Knowledge for Teaching Early Elementary Mathematics (K-TEEM) Assessment

Psychometric validation of the simplified Chinese Copenhagen Neck Functional Disability Scale in patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain.

Introduction: Establish content and structural validity, internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and measurement error of the physical and cognitive scales of the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation clinical Rehabilitation (USER) in geriatric rehabilitation. Material and methods: First, an expert consensus-meeting (N=7) was organised for content validity wherein scale content validity index (CVI) was measured. Second, in a sample of geriatric rehabilitation patient structural validity (N=616) was assessed by confirmatory factor analyses for exploring unidimensionality. Cut-off criteria were: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤0.08; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) ≥0.95. Local independence (residual correlation<0.20) and monotonicity (Hi-coefficient ≥0.30 and Hs-coefficient ≥0.50) were also calculated. Cronbach alphas were calculated for internal consistency. Alpha's > 0.7 was considered adequate.Third, two nurses independently administered the USER to 37 patients. Intraclass-correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated for inter-rater reliability (IRR), standard error of measurement (SEM) and Smallest Detectable Change (SDC). Results: The CVI for physical functioning was moderate (0.73) and excellent for cognitive functioning (0.97). Structural validity physical scale was acceptable (CFI;0.95, TLI;0.93, RMSEA;0.07, ECV;0.78, OmegaH;0.87; Monotonicity;(Hi;0.52-0.75 and Hs;0.63)). Cognitive scale was good (CFI;0.98, TLI;0.96, RMSEA;0.05, ECV;0.66 and OmegaH;0.90. Monotonicity;(Hi;0.30 –0.70 and Hs;0.61)). Cronbach's alpha were high: physical scale;0.92 and cognitive scale;0.94. Reliability physical scale ICC;0.94, SEM;5 and SDC;14 and cognitive scale ICC;0.88, SEM;5 and SDC;13. Conclusion: The observational scales of the USER have shown sufficient content and structural validity, internal consistency, and interrater reliability for measuring physical and cognitive function in geriatric rehabilitation. Trial registration: N/A

Objective Upper limb neurodynamic tests are used to evaluate the mechanical sensitivity of the peripheral nerves. However, very little is known about the reliability of upper limb neurodynamic tests, especially for the radial and ulnar nerves. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability of neurodynamic tests of the upper extremities to test median, radial, and ulnar nerves. Materials &amp; Methods In this observational cross-sectional study, 25 asymptomatic subjects aged 19-45 years participated. They were selected using simple non-random sampling. Then two examiners performed the neurodynamic tests on them on two successive days. The goal was to assess the reliability of median, radial, and ulnar neurodynamic tests. During the neurodynamic tests, the participants reported the initial stretching pain and the moment of submaximal pain (substantially obvious pain) in related areas of the nerve distribution, including the anterior side of the elbow and forearm for the median nerve, posterolateral aspect of the elbow and forearm for radial nerve, and medial side of elbow and forearm for the ulnar nerve. At the starting point of painful stretching and the submaximal pain, the angle of elbow extension (for median and radial nerve tests) and shoulder abduction angle (for ulnar nerve test) were measured using a mechanical goniometer. The range between these two points was used to analyze the reliability. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the standard error of measurement (SEM) were calculated to examine the relative and absolute reliability, respectively. Using t-test, the difference in the mean of the measurements was calculated. Results No significant difference was found between the mean measurements of the two testers in intra-session and inter-session reliability. For examiners 1 and 2, was obtained 0.94 (SEM:2ο) and 0.89 (SEM:2.85ο) for the median nerve, 0.56 (SEM:6.36˚ ) and 0.93 (SEM:1.82ο) for radial nerve, and 0.42 (SEM:3.27ο) and 0.79 (SEM:1.42ο) for the ulnar nerve. Inter-tester intra-session reliability was obtained at 0.84 (SEM: 3.44ο), 0.54 (SEM: 6.1ο), and 0.55 (SEM: 2.75ο), respectively, for median, radial, and ulnar nerves. Inter-tester inter-session reliability was obtained at 0.97 (SEM:1.43ο), 0.69 (SEM:5.06ο), and 0.51 (SEM: 2.8˚ο), respectively, for median, radial, and ulnar nerves. Conclusion The upper limb neurodynamic tests and measurement of the range between the onset of stretching pain and the point of submaximal pain have moderate to excellent reliability. Therefore, these clinical tests can be used in diagnostic evaluations and treatment interventions. Also, the median nerve neurodynamic test has higher relative reliability than radial and ulnar nerve neurodynamic tests.

Background:Severe fatigue is highly prevalent in people with inflammatory arthritis IA [1], and an important outcome clinically and in research. The BRAF MDQ and three BRAF NRS v2 (severity, importance,...

Test-retest and inter-rater reliability and construct validity of the 2-minute step test in individuals with Parkinson's disease

Purpose: The construct validity, test–retest reliability, and measurement error of the Arm Function in Multiple Sclerosis Questionnaire (AMSQ) were examined. Additionally, the influence of administration-method on reliability and measurement error was investigated.Method: 112 Dutch adult MS-patients from an academic- and a residential care-facility participated. Questionnaires were administered on paper, online or as interview, and patients performed several performance tests. Construct validity was assessed by testing pre-defined hypotheses. Reliability was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs), Standard Error of Measurements (SEMs) and Smallest Detectable Changes (SDCs).Results: For construct validity (N = 105) 9 of 13 hypotheses were confirmed (69%). As expected, the AMSQ showed moderate to strong relationships with the instruments measuring similar constructs. The test–retest reliability coefficient was 0.96 (95% Confidence Interval 0.94–0.97); SEM was 6.3 (6.3% of scale range); SDC was 17.5 (on a sale from 0 to 100). Different administration-methods showed good reliability (ICC 0.88–0.94) and small standard errors (SEM 5.6–7.2).Conclusion: The AMSQ shows satisfying results for validity and excellent reliability; allowing for proper use in research. Due to a large SDC value, caution is needed when using the AMSQ in individual patient care. Further research should determine whether the SDC is smaller than the minimal important change.Implications for RehabilitationThe Arm Function in Multiple Sclerosis Questionnaire (AMSQ) measures activity limitations due to hand and arm functioning in patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS).Results of this study confirm adequate validity and reliability of the AMSQ in patient with MS.The equivalence of scores from online, paper or interview administration is supported.A change score of ≥18 points on the scale of the AMSQ (on a scale 0–100) needs to occur to be certain a change beyond measurement error has occurred in an individual patient.

Background:Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is often used to examine neurophysiology. We aimed to investigate the inter-rater reliability and agreement of single pulse TMS in hospitalised acute ischemic stroke patients.Methods:Thirty-one patients with first-time acute ischemic stroke (median age 72 (IQR 64-75), 35% females) underwent TMS motor threshold (MT) assessment in 4 muscles bilaterally, conducted by 1 of 2 physiotherapists. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using a two-way random effects model (2,1) absolute agreement-type Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) and Smallest Detectable Change (SDC) were used to evaluate agreement.Results:Reliability, SEM, and SDC of TMS was found to be moderate in right opponens pollicis (0.78 [CI 95% 0.55-0.89], SEM: 4.51, SDC: 12.51), good in right vastus medialis and tibial anterior (0.88 [CI 95% 0.72-0.96], SEM: 2.89, SDC: 8.01 and 0.88 [CI 95% 0.76-0.94], SEM: 2.88, SDC: 7.98 respectively), and excellent in right and left biceps brachii (0.98 [CI 95% 0.96-0.99], SEM: 1.79 SDC: 4.96, and 0.94 [CI 95% 0.89-0.97], SEM: 2.17 SDC: 6.01), opponens pollicis (0.92 [CI 95% 0.83-0.96], SEM: 2.68 SDC: 8.26, vastus medialis (0.92 [CI 95% 0.84-0.96], SEM: 2.87 SDC: 7.95), and tibial anterior (0.93 [CI 95% 0.86-0.96], SEM: 2.51 SDC: 6.95).Conclusion:The TMS demonstrated moderate to excellent inter-rater reliability confirming the ability of these measures to reliably discriminate between individuals in the current study sample. Improvements of less than 4.96 to 12.51 could be a result of measurement error and may therefore not be considered a true change.

The aim of this review is to critically appraise and summarize the quality of the measurement properties of all versions of the Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL) version 2.0. The Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale version 2.0 was developed as a comprehensive measure in assessing the quality of life of stroke survivors. The shortened version and cross-culturally translated versions are further developed in different countries. A systematic review will clarify the levels of reliability and validity of all versions. The population of interest for this review will include adult stroke survivors of either sex diagnosed with a stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) who have no other comorbidities affecting their quality of life. The SS-QOL version 2.0 will be the specific instrument of interest, and the quality of life of stroke survivors will be the construct of interest in this review. The measures of reliability, validity, and responsiveness will be assessed as outcomes. Only the studies evaluating the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of all versions of the SS-QOL 2.0 will be included in the review. A literature search will be conducted for published studies in MEDLINE and Embase, and unpublished data in Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. After a three-step search strategy, study selection will be done by two reviewers independently. Then, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology will be applied for assessment of methodological quality, data extraction, and synthesis. PROSPERO CRD42020211727.

ABSTRACTBackgroundMuscle strength is usually measured in individuals with stroke with Portable dynamometers (gold standard). However, no studies have investigated the reliability, the standard error of measurement (SEM) and the minimal detectable difference (MDD95%) of the dynamometry for the measurement of hand grip, pinch grip and trunk strength in subjects with subacute stroke.Objective1) To investigate the intra and inter-rater reliability, the SEM and the MDD95% of the portable dynamometers for the measurement of grip, pinch and trunk strength in subjects with subacute stroke, and 2) to verify whether the use of different number of trials (first trial and the average of the first two and three trials) affected the results.Method32 subjects with subacute stroke (time since stroke onset: 3.6 months, SD=0.66 months) were evaluated. Hand grip, 3 pinch grips (i.e. pulp-to-pulp/palmar/lateral) and 4 trunk muscles (i.e. flexors, extensors, lateral flexors and rotators) strength were bilaterally assessed (except trunk flexors/extensors) with portable dynamometry by two independent examiners over two sessions (1-2 weeks apart). One-way ANOVAs and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,k) were used for analysis (α=0.05). SEM and MDD95% were also calculated.ResultsFor all muscular groups and sources of outcome values, including one trial, after familiarization, similar results were found (0.01≤F≤0.08; 0.92≤p≤0.99) with significant and adequate values of intra-rater (0.64≤ICC≤0.99; 0.23≤95%CI≤0.99) and inter-rater (0.66≤ICC≤0.99; 0.25≤95%CI≤0.99) reliability. SEM and MDD95% were considered low (0.39≤EPM≤2.21 Kg; 0.96≤MMD95%≤6.12 Kg) for all outcome scores.ConclusionOnly one trial, following familiarization, demonstrated adequate intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of the portable dynamometers for the measurement of hand grip, pinch grip and trunk strength in subjects with subacute stroke.

BackgroundThe Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) is the only questionnaire available to assess quality of life in patients with isolated meniscal injuries. The aims of this study were to prepare the Persian version of the WOMET (PWOMET) and validate it in Iranian patients with isolated meniscal tears.MethodsIn the first stage, the English version of WOMET was translated into Persian. Content validity, and qualitative and quantitative (impact score) face validity were tested by specialists and in a sample of 30 patients. In the second stage, PWOMET was assessed for the evaluation of psychometric properties in 100 patients with isolated meniscal injury and 50 healthy people based on the COSMIN checklist. Construct validity was tested based on structural validity (factor analysis) and hypothesis testing. Correlation with the total scores on the SF-36, IKDC and KOOS were used for concurrent criterion validity. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach’s alpha, respectively. In addition the standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change were calculated. Interpretability was investigated as the ceiling and floor effects and minimal important difference.ResultsThe PWOMET had acceptable qualitative face validity and content validity. The impact score (quantitative face validity) was more than 1.5 for all items. For construct validity, structural validity (factor analysis) and hypothesis testing ability were confirmed. Correlations between the PWOMET total score and IKDC, SF-36, KOOS scores were 0.61, 0.54 and 0.63, respectively (p < 0.001), thus confirming concurrent criterion validity. The intraclass correlation coefficient, Cronbach’s alpha, SEM and smallest detectable change for the PWOMET were 0.73, 0.89, 9.43 and 26.13, respectively. The PWOMET had no ceiling or floor effects, and minimal important difference was 9.07.ConclusionThe PWOMET provides valid and reliable scores for assessment of the quality of life in patients with isolated meniscal injury.

BackgroundTo assess the 10-item Spine Functional Index (SFI-10) clinimetric properties in a general musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) spine population. Ascertain the psychometric characteristics’ consistency with the developmental study findings for structural and criterion validity, internal consistency, and floor/ceiling effect; establish the longitudinal characteristics for test–retest reliability, responsiveness, construct validity, and error scores; and clarify practical characteristics of readability, missing responses, and time/errors for completion/scoring related to administrative burden.MethodsA longitudinal study of deidentified spine MSD patients (n = 1317, 53.4% female, age = 18-91yrs, av = 49.5 ± 16.4yrs; neck = 36.5%, mid-back = 8.4%, low back = 56.0%, multi-site = 0.3%) who completed the SFI-10, the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), and Numerical Rating Scales for Global-function (G-NRS) and Pain (P-NRS). Structural validity used factor analysis, exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA), plus Rasch analysis. Criterion validity used Spearman's correlation coefficient (r) between the SFI-10 and criteria (PSFS, G-NRS and P-PRS) scores, and construct validity (n = 91, known-groups independent t-test). Internal consistency used Cronbach's alpha (α) and floor/ceiling effects were determined. Subgroups determined reliability (n = 104, intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC2.1); error (n = 171) through the standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimum detectable change (MDC90). Responsiveness (n = 171) was calculated using effect-size (ES), standard response mean (SRM), and area under the curve (AUC); and interpretability through the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Practicality (n = 16) clarified missing responses, readability, and time/errors for completion/scoring.ResultsThe SFI-10’s structural validity was unequivocally one-dimensional from EFA and verified by CFA with acceptable fit-indices (chi-square/df = 2.88, CFI = 0.981, TLI = 0.975, RMSEA = 0.061), and supported by Rasch analysis (PSR = 0.79, Infit = 0.678–1.216, Outfit = 0.604–1.279, Item-difficulties = -1,215–2.488). Criterion validity varied from high (G-NRS, r = 0.60) and moderate (PSFS, r = 0.43) to low-inverse (P-NRS, r = -0.24). Internal consistency was strong (α = 0.84) and no floor/ceiling effects were present. Reliability was excellent (ICC2.1 = 0.97), responsiveness substantial (ES = 1.54; SRM = 1.64; AUC = 0.89), and measurement error robust (SEM = 3.84; MDC90 = 8.98%, MDIC = 10.4%), with construct validity confirmed (p < 0.001). Practicality showed no missing responses, completion/scoring errors < 1%, excellent readability (Grade = 5.1, Ease = 74.1%), short completion (39.2 ± 10.3 s) and scoring times (8.5 ± 1.8 s).ConclusionsThe SFI-10 demonstrates sound measurement properties in a general physiotherapy outpatient MSD spine population for both psychometric and practical characteristics. Further investigation in culturally diverse settings that include both inpatients and community settings with whole-spine and regional-spine criteria is required.

BackgroundOrthosis satisfaction is an important outcome in assessing quality of care. However, no measurement specifically assessing orthosis satisfaction is available in the Dutch language. Therefore, the aim of this study was to translate the Client Satisfaction with Device (CSD) module of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey (OPUS) into Dutch, and to assess its content validity, structural validity and reliability in persons with chronic hand conditions.MethodsThe CSD was translated and cross-cultural adapted according to respective guidelines. To determine content validity, 10 chronic hand orthotic users and two professionals judged the relevance, comprehensibility, and comprehensiveness of the Dutch CSD (D-CSD). Thereafter, in a cross-sectional study, 76 persons were asked to complete the D-CSD twice, with a 2-week interval. Dimensionality of the D-CSD was examined by principal component analysis (PCA), and factor model fit was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Reliability was assessed as internal consistency and test-retest reliability, including the 95% limits of agreement (LoA), the standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC).ResultsThe D-CSD items and response options were deemed relevant and comprehensible. After adding an item on cleaning the orthosis, content validity was judged sufficient. PCA indicated a one-factor model, which was confirmed by CFA. We found good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82; 95%CI 0.75–0.87), and moderate to good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.81; 95%CI 0.71–0.87). There was no difference between the mean D-CSD score at test (26.8 points) and retest (25.9 points) (mean (SD) difference: 0.86 points (4.00); 95%CI -0.06-1.79; p = 0.07). The 95% LoA were −6.99 to 8.71, and the SEM and SDC were 2.88 and 7.98 points, respectively.ConclusionsBased on sufficient content and structural validity, and good reliability, we consider the D-CSD a useful tool to evaluate orthosis satisfaction in persons with chronic hand conditions on group level. Because of a relatively high SDC, sensitivity to detect changes over time on individual level is limited.Study registration numberNCT05320211.

BackgroundCronbach's alpha is widely used as the preferred index of reliability for medical postgraduate examinations. A value of 0.8-0.9 is seen by providers and regulators alike as an adequate demonstration of acceptable reliability for any assessment. Of the other statistical parameters, Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) is mainly seen as useful only in determining the accuracy of a pass mark. However the alpha coefficient depends both on SEM and on the ability range (standard deviation, SD) of candidates taking an exam. This study investigated the extent to which the necessarily narrower ability range in candidates taking the second of the three part MRCP(UK) diploma examinations, biases assessment of reliability and SEM.Methodsa) The interrelationships of standard deviation (SD), SEM and reliability were investigated in a Monte Carlo simulation of 10,000 candidates taking a postgraduate examination. b) Reliability and SEM were studied in the MRCP(UK) Part 1 and Part 2 Written Examinations from 2002 to 2008. c) Reliability and SEM were studied in eight Specialty Certificate Examinations introduced in 2008-9.ResultsThe Monte Carlo simulation showed, as expected, that restricting the range of an assessment only to those who had already passed it, dramatically reduced the reliability but did not affect the SEM of a simulated assessment. The analysis of the MRCP(UK) Part 1 and Part 2 written examinations showed that the MRCP(UK) Part 2 written examination had a lower reliability than the Part 1 examination, but, despite that lower reliability, the Part 2 examination also had a smaller SEM (indicating a more accurate assessment). The Specialty Certificate Examinations had small Ns, and as a result, wide variability in their reliabilities, but SEMs were comparable with MRCP(UK) Part 2.ConclusionsAn emphasis upon assessing the quality of assessments primarily in terms of reliability alone can produce a paradoxical and distorted picture, particularly in the situation where a narrower range of candidate ability is an inevitable consequence of being able to take a second part examination only after passing the first part examination. Reliability also shows problems when numbers of candidates in examinations are low and sampling error affects the range of candidate ability. SEM is not subject to such problems; it is therefore a better measure of the quality of an assessment and is recommended for routine use.

Reliability of isokinetic dynamometer for isometric assessment of ankle plantar flexor strength

BACKGROUND Residual contrast-enhancing tumor volume (RTV) is an important parameter in glioblastoma (GBM) treatment. MR imaging within 48hrs after surgery is the preferred imaging modality but is prone to variability because of different interpretation by different raters. Variability can be statistically assessed using agreement and reliability parameters. The former are underreported in medical literature and are often mixed up with the latter. But agreement parameters are to be preferred in assessment of the level of agreement between repeated measurements. A typical agreement parameter is the standard error of measurement (SEM), which is expressed in the same unit as the original variable. Reliability parameters on the other hand relate the measurement error to the variability between study objects. A typical and well-known reliability parameter is the intraclass coefficient (ICC), expressed on a scale from 0 to 1. We investigated both SEM and ICC between and within raters concerning RTV in GBM. MATERIAL AND METHODS Ten cases were randomly selected from a glioblastoma database. Three observers (a neuroradiologist, NR; a neurosurgeon, NS; a junior neurosurgical trainee, JNT) performed two sessions of volumetric assessment of RTV, blinded for each others results and independently from each other. At least 2 months passed in between sessions. Volumetric assessment was performed using Magnetisation Prepared-Rapid Echo Gradient (MPRAGE) 0.9mm images in standard neuronavigation software (Medtronic Inc, Louisville, CO, USA), in comparison with other images when deemed necessary by the individual rater. Semi-automated segmentation was applied, meaning that the rater used automated segmentation technique on each slice, but adjusted according to his of her own judgement (segmentational growing around the region of interest). Volumes were expressed in mL. Statistical analysis was performed using R software (version 3.4.3 (30-11-2017); Attached packages: psych foreign pander date knitr) to calculate ICCs. SEMs were manually calculated using the formulae by De Vet et al. RESULTS Intrarater ICC agreement was 0.96 (0.87–0.99), 1 (0.98–1) and 0.77 (0.34–0.94) for NS, NR and JNT resp. SEM agreement was 0.87mL, 0.25mL and 2.67mL resp. Interrater variability was as follows: NS-NR 0.89 (0.65–0.97) ICC and 1.42mL SEM; NS-JNT 0.93 (0.77–0.98) ICC and 1.52mL SEM; NR-JNT 0.74 (0.28–0.93) ICC and 2.81mL SEM. CONCLUSION Agreement on postoperative residual contrast-enchancing tumor volume in GBM was high between neurosurgeon and neuroradiologist, with SEM 1.42mL. SEM probably reflects the differences in interpretation, especially of areas with blood products on postoperative MR imaging. Both intrarater and interrater agreement was highest for more experienced raters.