多发性硬化症患者 L 测试的可靠性和有效性。

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Perceptual and Motor Skills Pub Date : 2024-11-07 DOI:10.1177/00315125241298728
Furkan Bilek, Caner F Demir
{"title":"多发性硬化症患者 L 测试的可靠性和有效性。","authors":"Furkan Bilek, Caner F Demir","doi":"10.1177/00315125241298728","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The L Test has been developed to assess balance and gait disorders. Our aim in this study was to estimate the test-retest reliability and validity of the L Test when used with 82 persons with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). For these participants, we examined the degree of agreement between the results of a first and second administration of the L Test (separated by one day), using Bland-Altman analysis and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs). We computed minimal detectable change (MDC) and standard error of measurement (SEM) values for the L Test and evaluated concurrent validity by correlating L Test results with the Timed Up and Go test (TUG) and the 10-minute Walk Test (10MWT). Prior to administering these measurements, we randomized the sequence of the test administrations to our participants. The Bland-Altman analysis showed that L Test was reproducible, with upper and lower limits of agreement of 0.99 and -1.45 seconds, respectively. The L Test demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability, with an ICC value of 0.996 (95% CI: 0.994-0.998). Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.996. The performance of the L Test is measured by seconds required to complete the task, and we found the L Test SEM value to be 0.35 seconds, and its MDC value to be 0.97 seconds. The L Test showed a strong correlation with both the TUG test (rho = 0.936; <i>p</i> < .001) and the 10MWT (rho = 0.925; <i>p</i> < .001). We concluded that the L Test is a reliable and valid \\ tool for assessing functional mobility and balance in PwMS.</p>","PeriodicalId":19869,"journal":{"name":"Perceptual and Motor Skills","volume":" ","pages":"315125241298728"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability and Validity of the L Test in Persons With Multiple Sclerosis.\",\"authors\":\"Furkan Bilek, Caner F Demir\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00315125241298728\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The L Test has been developed to assess balance and gait disorders. Our aim in this study was to estimate the test-retest reliability and validity of the L Test when used with 82 persons with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). For these participants, we examined the degree of agreement between the results of a first and second administration of the L Test (separated by one day), using Bland-Altman analysis and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs). We computed minimal detectable change (MDC) and standard error of measurement (SEM) values for the L Test and evaluated concurrent validity by correlating L Test results with the Timed Up and Go test (TUG) and the 10-minute Walk Test (10MWT). Prior to administering these measurements, we randomized the sequence of the test administrations to our participants. The Bland-Altman analysis showed that L Test was reproducible, with upper and lower limits of agreement of 0.99 and -1.45 seconds, respectively. The L Test demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability, with an ICC value of 0.996 (95% CI: 0.994-0.998). Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.996. The performance of the L Test is measured by seconds required to complete the task, and we found the L Test SEM value to be 0.35 seconds, and its MDC value to be 0.97 seconds. The L Test showed a strong correlation with both the TUG test (rho = 0.936; <i>p</i> < .001) and the 10MWT (rho = 0.925; <i>p</i> < .001). We concluded that the L Test is a reliable and valid \\\\ tool for assessing functional mobility and balance in PwMS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perceptual and Motor Skills\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"315125241298728\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perceptual and Motor Skills\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125241298728\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perceptual and Motor Skills","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125241298728","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

L 测试是为评估平衡和步态障碍而开发的。本研究的目的是评估 L 测试在 82 名多发性硬化症患者(PwMS)中使用时的重复测试可靠性和有效性。对于这些参与者,我们使用布兰-阿尔特曼分析法和类内相关系数(ICCs)来检验 L 测试第一次和第二次施测结果(间隔一天)之间的一致程度。我们计算了 L 测试的最小可检测变化(MDC)和测量标准误差(SEM)值,并通过将 L 测试结果与定时起立行走测试(TUG)和 10 分钟步行测试(10MWT)相关联来评估并发有效性。在进行这些测量之前,我们随机安排了参与者的测试顺序。布兰德-阿尔特曼分析表明,L 测试具有良好的再现性,一致性的上限和下限分别为 0.99 秒和-1.45 秒。L 测试的重测可靠性极佳,ICC 值为 0.996(95% CI:0.994-0.998)。克朗巴赫α系数为 0.996。我们发现 L 测试的 SEM 值为 0.35 秒,MDC 值为 0.97 秒。L 测试与 TUG 测试(rho = 0.936;p < .001)和 10MWT 测试(rho = 0.925;p < .001)均显示出很强的相关性。我们的结论是,L 测试是一种可靠有效的工具,可用于评估 PwMS 的功能活动能力和平衡能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reliability and Validity of the L Test in Persons With Multiple Sclerosis.

The L Test has been developed to assess balance and gait disorders. Our aim in this study was to estimate the test-retest reliability and validity of the L Test when used with 82 persons with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). For these participants, we examined the degree of agreement between the results of a first and second administration of the L Test (separated by one day), using Bland-Altman analysis and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs). We computed minimal detectable change (MDC) and standard error of measurement (SEM) values for the L Test and evaluated concurrent validity by correlating L Test results with the Timed Up and Go test (TUG) and the 10-minute Walk Test (10MWT). Prior to administering these measurements, we randomized the sequence of the test administrations to our participants. The Bland-Altman analysis showed that L Test was reproducible, with upper and lower limits of agreement of 0.99 and -1.45 seconds, respectively. The L Test demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability, with an ICC value of 0.996 (95% CI: 0.994-0.998). Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.996. The performance of the L Test is measured by seconds required to complete the task, and we found the L Test SEM value to be 0.35 seconds, and its MDC value to be 0.97 seconds. The L Test showed a strong correlation with both the TUG test (rho = 0.936; p < .001) and the 10MWT (rho = 0.925; p < .001). We concluded that the L Test is a reliable and valid \ tool for assessing functional mobility and balance in PwMS.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Perceptual and Motor Skills
Perceptual and Motor Skills PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
110
期刊最新文献
Associations Between Fundamental Motor Skill Domains and Physical Fitness Components in 5-11-Year-Old Children. Immediate Effects of Custom Foot Orthoses on Postural Balance and Pain in Obese Middle-Aged Women With Plantar Fasciitis. Reliability and Validity of the Trunk Control Measurement Scale in Children With Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. Magnitude and Direction of Interlimb Asymmetry and the Association of Interlimb Asymmetry with Physical Performance in Judo Athletes with Visual Impairment. The Effects of Telerehabilitation-Based Exercise Therapy on Motor and Non-Motor Clinical Outcomes in Adults With Facial Palsy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1