Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byVictoria Harmon Modified over 9 years ago
1
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Lindner HY, Langius-Eklöf A, Hermansson LM. Testretest reliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control version 2.0. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(4):635–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.09.0197 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.09.0197JSP Test-retest reliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control version 2.0 Helen Y. N. Lindner, PhD; Ann Langius-Eklöf, PhD; Liselotte M. N. Hermansson, PhD
2
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Lindner HY, Langius-Eklöf A, Hermansson LM. Testretest reliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control version 2.0. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(4):635–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.09.0197 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.09.0197JSP Aim – Evaluate test-retest reliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control (ACMC) version 2.0. Relevance – ACMC is an observation-based assessment that evaluates ability to control myoelectric prosthetic hand in bimanual activities – Stability of ACMC measures has not been evaluated over time.
3
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Lindner HY, Langius-Eklöf A, Hermansson LM. Testretest reliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control version 2.0. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(4):635–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.09.0197 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.09.0197JSP Method Upper-limb prosthesis users: – Performed standardized activity twice, 2 to 5 wk apart. Activity performances were: – Video recorded. – Assessed by 2 ACMC raters. Data were analyzed by: – Weighted kappa. – Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). – Bland-Altman.
4
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Lindner HY, Langius-Eklöf A, Hermansson LM. Testretest reliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control version 2.0. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(4):635–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.09.0197 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.09.0197JSP Results Test-retest reliability – Weighted kappa: fair to excellent. – ICC: 0.94. – Bland-Altman: 1 user outside limits of agreement. – Minimal detectable change (MDC): 0.55 logits (1 rater) and 0.69 logits (2 raters). Interrater reliability – Weighted kappa agreements: fair to excellent. – ICC: 0.95 (test) and 0.92 (retest). Intrarater agreement – Excellent.
5
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Lindner HY, Langius-Eklöf A, Hermansson LM. Testretest reliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control version 2.0. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(4):635–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.09.0197 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.09.0197JSP Conclusion Evidence regarding stability of ACMC version 2.0 measures over time is satisfactory. MDC value can be clinically useful. Further research is needed to determine: – Minimal clinically important difference. – Responsiveness of ACMC.
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.