Lynn A Worobey1,2,3,4, Christina K Zigler1, Randall Huzinec2, Stephanie K Rigot3,4, JongHun Sung5, Laura A Rice5. 1. Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. Centers for Rehab Services, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5. Department of Kinesiology and Community Health, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois.
Abstract
Background: Proper transfer technique is associated with improved biomechanics and decreased pain and pathology. However, many users do not use proper technique, and appropriate assessment and training are needed to address these deficits. The transfer assessment instrument (TAI) 4.0 was designed to meet those needs and improve on past versions by removing the need for clinician training, shortening administration time, and simplifying question content. Objectives: Evaluate the psychometric properties of the TAI 4.0. Methods: A convenience sample of full-time wheelchair users was scored on multiple transfers by four raters to assess interrater, intrarater, and test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of the TAI 4.0. Each user also was scored using a visual analog scale (VAS). Results: For 44 participants, the mean TAI 4.0 and VAS across all transfers were 7.58 ± 1.12 and 7.44 ± 1.78, respectively, and scores were significantly correlated (r = 0.52-0.7). VAS scores were more strongly influenced by the flight/landing and body setup phases of the transfer. There were no significant associations between TAI 4.0 score and demographics. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranged from 0.80 to 0.85 for interrater reliability, 0.60 to 0.76 for intrarater reliability, and 0.55 to 0.76 for test-retest reliability. The minimum detectable change (MDC) for the total score ranged from 1.02 to 1.30. Conclusion: The TAI 4.0 provides reliable and valid quantitative assessment of an individual's transfer without the need for comprehensive training, as is the case with the TAI 3.0. The tool can be completed in 3 minutes (average) in a clinical setting with only a ruler and goniometer.
Background: Proper transfer technique is associated with improved biomechanics and decreased pain and pathology. However, many users do not use proper technique, and appropriate assessment and training are needed to address these deficits. The transfer assessment instrument (TAI) 4.0 was designed to meet those needs and improve on past versions by removing the need for clinician training, shortening administration time, and simplifying question content. Objectives: Evaluate the psychometric properties of the TAI 4.0. Methods: A convenience sample of full-time wheelchair users was scored on multiple transfers by four raters to assess interrater, intrarater, and test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of the TAI 4.0. Each user also was scored using a visual analog scale (VAS). Results: For 44 participants, the mean TAI 4.0 and VAS across all transfers were 7.58 ± 1.12 and 7.44 ± 1.78, respectively, and scores were significantly correlated (r = 0.52-0.7). VAS scores were more strongly influenced by the flight/landing and body setup phases of the transfer. There were no significant associations between TAI 4.0 score and demographics. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranged from 0.80 to 0.85 for interrater reliability, 0.60 to 0.76 for intrarater reliability, and 0.55 to 0.76 for test-retest reliability. The minimum detectable change (MDC) for the total score ranged from 1.02 to 1.30. Conclusion: The TAI 4.0 provides reliable and valid quantitative assessment of an individual's transfer without the need for comprehensive training, as is the case with the TAI 3.0. The tool can be completed in 3 minutes (average) in a clinical setting with only a ruler and goniometer.
Entities:
Keywords:
outcome assessment; rehabilitation; reliability and validity; wheelchairs
Authors: Alicia M Koontz; Eric D Brindle; Padmaja Kankipati; David Feathers; Rory A Cooper Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Chung-Ying Tsai; Michael L Boninger; Jennifer Hastings; Rory A Cooper; Laura Rice; Alicia M Koontz Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Laura A Rice; Ian Smith; Annmaire R Kelleher; Karen Greenwald; Claire Hoelmer; Michael L Boninger Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Laura A Rice; Jong Hun Sung; Kathleen Keane; Elizabeth Peterson; Jacob J Sosnoff Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Lynn A Worobey; Rachel Hibbs; Stephanie K Rigot; Michael L Boninger; Randall Huzinec; Jong H Sung; Laura A Rice Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 4.060
Authors: Lynn A Worobey; Stephanie K Rigot; Michael L Boninger; Randall Huzinec; Jong H Sung; Kaitlin DiGiovine; Laura A Rice Journal: Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl Date: 2020-11-02
Authors: Stephanie K Rigot; Kaitlin M DiGiovine; Michael L Boninger; Rachel Hibbs; Ian Smith; Lynn A Worobey Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 3.966