PHYS THER
Vol. 88, No. 7, July 2008, pp. 888-890
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.2008.88.7.888
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stratford, P. W
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Stratford, P. W
Related Collections
Right arrow Balance
Right arrow Parkinson Disease and Parkinsonian Disorders
Right arrow Tests and Measurements
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Letters and Responses

On "Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change on balance..." Steffen T, Seney M. Phys Ther. 2008;88:733–746.


Because this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the full text and any section headings.

Translating reliability coefficients into clinically meaningful representations of measurement error is a necessary and important step when the goal is to link clinical research to clinical practice. The study by Steffen and Seney1 investigates the reliability of several balance and ambulation tests and converts the obtained coefficients into minimal detectable change (MDC) estimates. The authors apply Shrout and Fleiss2 type 3,k intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to quantify relative reliability and, from these estimates, they calculate the standard error of measurement (SEM) to quantify measurement error in the same units as the original measurement. For some of the balance and ambulation tests, 2 trials were performed on each of 2 occasions (eg, Timed "Up & Go" Test [TUG]); for other tests (eg, Six-Minute Walk Test [6MWT]), a single measurement was performed on each of 2 occasions. In the former case, the authors reported a type 3,2 ICC; in the latter case, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Paul W Stratford

PW Stratford, PT, MSc, is Professor, School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ptjournalHome page
S. C. Webber and M. M. Porter
Reliability of Ankle Isometric, Isotonic, and Isokinetic Strength and Power Testing in Older Women
Physical Therapy, August 1, 2010; 90(8): 1165 - 1175.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]