Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBaque, E.
dc.contributor.authorBarber, L.
dc.contributor.authorSakzewski, L.
dc.contributor.authorBoyd, Roslyn
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-30T15:27:41Z
dc.date.available2017-01-30T15:27:41Z
dc.date.created2016-07-05T19:30:40Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationBaque, E. and Barber, L. and Sakzewski, L. and Boyd, R. 2016. Test–re-test reproducibility of activity capacity measures for children with an acquired brain injury. Brain Injury: pp. 1-7.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/46511
dc.identifier.doi10.3109/02699052.2016.1165869
dc.description.abstract

Objective: To determine test–re-test reproducibility of the Timed Up & Go (TUG) test, 30-second repetition maximum (repmax) of functional exercises, 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) and High-level Mobility Assessment Tool (HiMAT) in children with Acquired Brain Injury (ABI). Secondarily, to assess the accuracy between hand-timed and video-timed scores for the TUG test and HiMAT. Methods: Thirty children at least 1 year post-ABI (mean age at assessment = 11 years 11 months, SD = 2 years 4 months; 14 males; Gross Motor Function Classification Scale I = 17, II = 13) were assessed twice. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), standard error of measurement and minimum detectable change (MDC) were determined. The Bland-Altman method and 95% limits of agreement (LOA) were used to assess the agreement between hand and video-timed TUG test and HiMAT scores. Results: Test–re-test reproducibility was acceptable for the TUG test (ICC = 0.92; MDC = 1.2s); repmax of functional exercises (ICC = 0.84–0.98; MDC = 4–8 reps); 6MWT (ICC = 0.90; MDC = 69.38 m) and HiMAT (ICC = 0.98; MDC = 6). Comparison of hand and video scores for the TUG test and HiMAT demonstrated a mean difference of 0.23 (LOA = –0.3–0.7) and –0.07 (LOA = –1.99–1.85), respectively. Conclusions Test–re-test reproducibility of lower limb activity capacity measures in children with ABI are acceptable. The MDC scores provide a useful reference to interpret treatment effectiveness. Video timing was more accurate than hand-timing for the TUG test.

dc.publisherInforma UK Limited
dc.titleTest–re-test reproducibility of activity capacity measures for children with an acquired brain injury
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.source.startPage1
dcterms.source.endPage7
dcterms.source.issn0269-9052
dcterms.source.titleBrain Injury
curtin.departmentSchool of Occupational Therapy and Social Work
curtin.accessStatusFulltext not available


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record