Intra- and Interrater Reliability of Remote Assessment of Transfers by Wheelchair Users Using the Transfer Assessment Instrument (Version 4.0).
Intra- and Interrater Reliability of Remote Assessment of Transfers by Wheelchair Users Using the Transfer Assessment Instrument (Version 4.0).
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.apmr.2020.12.032
复制
发表时间：
2022-04
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Rice, Laura A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Worobey, Lynn A.;Hibbs, Rachel;Rigot, Stephanie K.;Boninger, Michael L.;Huzinec, Randall;Sung, Jong H.;Rice, Laura A.
评估转移评估工具（TAI） 4.0版本用于远程评估转移质量时的可靠性、测量标准误差、最小可检测变化和项目级一致性。参与者从轮椅上转移到垫子上（转移1），并在延迟10分钟后重复此操作以评估评分者内部可靠性（转移2），并在1 - 2天后评估测试-重测可靠性（转移3）。每次转移由4名评分员亲自评分，并由远程临床评分员异步评分。2017年全国退伍军人轮椅运动会便利样本44名全职轮椅使用者，不适用TAI总分、分项得分（轮椅设置、身体设置、飞行/降落）和项目得分（15项）。当远程计分TAI总分和评估者内（ICC(3,1): 0.687至0.854）、测试-重测（ICC(3,1):0.695至0.836）和评估者间信度（ICC(3,5): 0.746至0.962）的子分数时，发现了中等至极好的信度。与平均现场评分者相比，远程评分者的总分和飞行/着陆评分更高（表明传输质量更高）（p=0.021和p=0.005）。转移1-3之间的远程评分没有差异。在所有项目的临床效用方面，远程评价者和现场评价者之间的项目水平百分比一致性超过了75%的临界值。TAI是远程评估转移技术的可靠结果指标。
To evaluate the reliability, standard error of measurement, minimum detectable change and item-level consistency of the Transfer Assessment Instrument (TAI) version 4.0, when used to evaluate transfer quality remotely. Participants transferred from their wheelchair to a mat table (transfer 1), and repeated this after a 10 minute delay to assess intra-rater reliability (transfer 2), and 1–2 days later to assess test-retest reliability (transfer 3). Each transfer was scored by in-person by 4 raters and asynchronously by a remote clinician rater. 2017 National Veterans Wheelchair Games Convenience sample of 44 full-time wheelchair users, Not applicable TAI total score, subscores (wheelchair setup, body setup, and flight/landing), and item scores (15 items). Moderate to excellent reliability was found when scoring remotely for TAI total and subscores for intra-rater (ICC(3,1): 0.687 to 0.854), test-retest ((ICC(3,1):0.695 to 0.836), and inter-rater reliability (ICC(3,5): 0.746 to 0.962). Remote rater total score and flight/landing subscore was greater (indicating higher transfer quality) compared to the average in-person raters (p=0.021 and p=0.005, respectively). There were no differences between transfers 1–3 in remote rater scores. Item-level percentage agreement between the remote rater and in-person exceeded the 75% cutoff for clinical utility for all items. The TAI is a reliable outcome measure for assessing transfer technique remotely.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1016/j.apmr.2011.11.017
发表时间：
2012-04-01
影响因子：
4.3
作者：
Fliess-Douer, Osnat;Vanlandewijck, Yves C.;Van der Woude, Lucas H. V.
通讯作者：
Van der Woude, Lucas H. V.
影响因子：
2.1
作者：
Hogaboom, Nathan S.;Diehl, Jessica A.;Boninger, Michael L.
通讯作者：
Boninger, Michael L.
影响因子：
1.7
作者：
Rice, Laura A.;Dysterheft, Jennifer L.;Rice, Ian M.
通讯作者：
Rice, Ian M.
DOI：
10.1016/j.apmr.2016.03.026
发表时间：
2016-10-01
影响因子：
4.3
作者：
Hogaboom, Nathan S.;Worobey, Lynn A.;Boninger, Michael. L.
通讯作者：
Boninger, Michael. L.
DOI：
10.1682/jrrd.2007.11.0189
发表时间：
2008-01-01
影响因子：
--
作者：
Gagnon, Dany;Nadeau, Sylvie;Piotte, France
通讯作者：
Piotte, France