Intra- and Interrater Reliability of Remote Assessment of Transfers by Wheelchair Users Using the Transfer Assessment Instrument (Version 4.0).

Autor:	Worobey LA; Human Engineering Research Laboratories, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA; Departments of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; Bioengineering; Physical Therapy; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Centers for Rehab Services, Pittsburgh, PA. Electronic address: law93@pitt.edu., Hibbs R; Rehabilitation Science and Technology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Centers for Rehab Services, Pittsburgh, PA., Rigot SK; Human Engineering Research Laboratories, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA; Bioengineering; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Centers for Rehab Services, Pittsburgh, PA., Boninger ML; Human Engineering Research Laboratories, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA; Departments of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; Bioengineering; Physical Therapy., Huzinec R; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Centers for Rehab Services, Pittsburgh, PA., Sung JH; Department of Kinesiology and Community Health, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL., Rice LA; Department of Human Performance and Sport Studies, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation [Arch Phys Med Rehabil] 2022 Apr; Vol. 103 (4), pp. 816-821. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Mar 10.
DOI:	10.1016/j.apmr.2020.12.032
Abstrakt:	Objective: 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. Design: Participants transferred from their wheelchair to a mat table (transfer 1), repeated this after a 10-minute delay to assess intrarater reliability (transfer 2), and repeated this 1-2 days later to assess test-retest reliability (transfer 3). Each transfer was scored in person by 4 raters and asynchronously by a remote clinician rater. Setting: 2017 National Veterans Wheelchair Games. Participants: Convenience sample of 44 full-time wheelchair users (N=44). Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: TAI total score, subscores (wheelchair setup, body setup, flight/landing), and item scores (15 items). Results: Moderate to excellent reliability was found when scoring remotely for TAI total and subscores for intrarater (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(3,1)=0.687-0.854), test-retest (ICC(3,1)=0.695-0.836), and interrater reliability (ICC(3,5)=0.746-0.962). Remote rater total score and flight/landing subscore were greater (indicating higher transfer quality) compared to the average in-person raters (P=.021 and P=.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. Conclusions: The TAI is a reliable outcome measure for assessing transfer technique remotely. (Copyright © 2021 The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu