Outcome measures are used in all physiotherapy areas not only in research, but also in clinical practice. Therefore, reproducibility studies are needed to assess the repeatability or consistency of these measurements. The aim of this experiment is to examine the test retest repeatability by one practitioner for an outcome measure in physiotherapy. Seventeen subjects were recruited to participate in this experiment. Three separate readings were taken for each subject on each day on two different occasions. The results showed that there was an excellent repeatability within a day and between days with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.98 and 0.92 respectively. The 95% confidence interval of the difference of value between -1.08 and 1.10 showed no difference within subject’s score. Also, the standard error measurement (SEM) was 1.78 which is considered as an acceptable value in clinical practice. The Bland and Altman 95% limits of agreement (LOA) were -2.7 to 4.7. In conclusion, despite this outcome measure demonstrated excellent test retest reliability, lack of appropriate sample size may decrease the reproducibility of this result. Consequently, a further research is required with an appropriate sample size to draw a definite conclusion. Introduction Reliability of an outcome measurement reflects how reproducible or repeatable the measurement is under a given set of circumstances. For an outcome measurement to be useful, it must provide stable or reproducible values with small errors of measurement when no variable is influencing the attribute that the measurement is quantifying (Rankin and Stoke 1998). In practice, the physiotherapist introduces a treatment intervention and then evaluates the effectiveness of t... ... middle of paper ... ...), the less the variation, the greater the reliability. Subsequently, the value of SEM of 1.78 showed that there was a small variation with repeated measurements. Bland and Altman’s 95% limits of agreement provide that approximately 95% of the difference between two measurements fall between -2.7 and 4.7. Scrutiny of the plot presented in Fig. 4 indicated no evidence of learning effect and minimal error for the outcome measure for the subjects. The decision whether this limit is acceptable clinically is depending on therapist’s clinical judgment (Portney and Watkins 2009). In conclusion, despite this outcome measure showed excellent reliability , the small sample size and the missing data may have affected its reliability (Shoukri et al, 2004). Therefore, a further study is recommended with larger sample size to confirm the consistency of this outcome measure.
The thresholds used to calculate each mean were not highly variable between trials. The data recorded over each trial were highly consistent between one another, except for a slight deviation in the measurements recorded on the palm of the hand. During ascending trial three on the palm, the results deviated from the norm in reference two the two prior trails. On trial one and two, 0.05 was the only measurement that was not felt. On trial three, not only was 0.05 not felt, but 0.10 was also not felt, which deviated from the norm set forth in the two prior
This systematic review conducted by Takeda A, Taylor SJC, Taylor RS, Khan F, Krum H, Underwood M, (2012) sourced twenty-five trials, and the overall number of people of the collective trials included was 5,942. Interventions were classified and assessed using the following headings.-
The guidelines generate the latest high-quality evidence which can very helpful to Physiotherapists as it will allow them to provide the best quality of care to the patients and improve the quality of their clinical decision making. However, guideline recommendations can be misleading, misinterpreted or wrong for some patients. It is important to evaluate the evidence and see if it is compatible with the patient the treatment is being provided for before selecting the recommended treatment. Furthermore, guideline evidence can be difficult to scrutinise for limitations as this requires a lot of time, resources and skills which is not available for all clinicians. Overall, if used correctly and appropriately Evidence-Based guidelines can be an effective process when Physiotherapists are choosing a treatment for a
An effective outcome measures should be valid, reliable, comprehensive, dynamic, flexible, and cogent (Powell). Outcome measurement allows us to determine which process and interventions are effective and which one needs improvement ( Powell). An effective asthma management by case managers in patients condition and patient outcome (MSDHS).
Meagher, D., Pan, T., Wegner, R., & Miller, J. (2012b). MAT Reliability and Validity. Pearson.
There are several tests and measure that can be done in a physical therapy examination in order to rule out certain diagnoses, as well as come closer to a physical therapy diagnosis. First, an observation of the patient standing, walking, and sitting should be done in order to associate any visible deficits in the patient that could be associated to the ...
718). His work lives on at the Buros Institute of Mental Measurements at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. In addition to the MMY, which is updated periodically, the institute publishes a variety of other test-related publications
reminders about common misconceptions regarding null hypothesis significance testing. Quality Of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com
...itations. However, a proper process to educate the health care professionals regarding its usage is needed. It helps to document the patients’ baseline health status and correlating it with goals gave a systematic idea of the rehabilitation process.
Meta-analysis was performed, using odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals. Primary outcomes were a red...
According to APTA,” Measuring outcomes are an important components of physical therapist practice. They are important in direct management of individual patient care and for the opportunity they provide the profession in collectively comparing care and determining
The development of knowledge requires a number of processes in order to establish credible data to ensure the validity and appropriateness of how it can be used in the future. For the healthcare industry, this has provided the ability to create and form new types of interventions in order to give adequate care across a of number of fields within the system. Research then, has been an essential part in providing definitive data, either by disproving previous beliefs or confirming newly found data and methods. Moreover, research in itself contains its own process with a methodological approach. Of the notable methods, quantitative research is often used for its systemic approach (Polit & Beck, 2006). Thus, the use of the scientific method is used, which also utilizes the use of numerical data (Polit & Beck). Here, researches make use of creating surveys, scales, or placing a numerical value on it subjects (Polit & Beck). In the end the resulting data is neutral and statistical. However, like all things its approach is not perfect, yet, it has the ability to yield valuable data.
Research findings are considered reliable if they are consistent over a period of time and they accurately represent the total population under evaluation or study (McMillan, 2016; Golafshani, 2013). Moreover, the findings of a research study are considered reliable if they can be reproduced using similar methodology. In this regard, replication and consistency are the two characteristics that determine the reliability of any given research tool or test. Validity establishes if the research study actually measures what it was initially intended to measure (McMillan, 2016). In this regard, validity of a research is determined by how accurate the measurement tool is in measuring what it was intended to establish. Therefore, the quality of research is determined by its reliability and validity. The validity and reliability of any
In conclusion, the clinical and statistical approaches in psychology can be beneficial to clinicians depending on the types of situations or specific areas that are being observed. As I mentioned earlier in my paper, the statistical method is useful when results are large and from heterogeneous samples and when they pertain to objective and specific areas. The clinical approach is beneficial in circumstances where situations are unforeseen rendering statistical tests moot. In addition, they are also useful when the interest in an individual case is high. Due to each individual being different and unique in their own way, I believe that clinicians should not rely heavily on statistical predictions and prepackaged treatments as opposed to clinical judgment and individual patients.
Medical study is a combination of clinical experience and scientific research, which requires proof and evidence. These two components can help physiotherapists with diagnosis, provide treatments for patients and making clinical decision. However, what are the ways for individuals to testify the effectiveness of these methods and treatments? Is there scientific evidence proving the information is correct and up to date? How helpful and appropriate are these methods and treatments to the patients? Hence evidence-based practice is necessary. It has a strong impact in physiotherapy, to ensure researches are more focused and relevant to physiotherapists and as a guiding principle to practice and treatment of patients.