Lynn A Worobey1, Rachel Hibbs2, Stephanie K Rigot3, Michael L Boninger4, Randall Huzinec5, Jong H Sung6, Laura A Rice7. 1. Human Engineering Research Laboratories, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA; Departments of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; Bioengineering; Physical Therapy; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Centers for Rehab Services, Pittsburgh, PA. Electronic address: law93@pitt.edu. 2. Rehabilitation Science and Technology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Centers for Rehab Services, Pittsburgh, PA. 3. Human Engineering Research Laboratories, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA; Bioengineering; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Centers for Rehab Services, Pittsburgh, PA. 4. Human Engineering Research Laboratories, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA; Departments of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; Bioengineering; Physical Therapy. 5. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Centers for Rehab Services, Pittsburgh, PA. 6. Department of Kinesiology and Community Health, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL. 7. Department of Human Performance and Sport Studies, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability, standard error of measurement, minimum detectable change, and item-level consistency of the Transfer Assessment Instrument (TAI) version 4.0 when used to evaluate transfer quality remotely. DESIGN: Participants transferred from their wheelchair to a mat table (transfer 1), repeated this after a 10-minute delay to assess intrarater reliability (transfer 2), and repeated this 1-2 days later to assess test-retest reliability (transfer 3). Each transfer was scored in person by 4 raters and asynchronously by a remote clinician rater. SETTING: 2017 National Veterans Wheelchair Games. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 44 full-time wheelchair users (N=44). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: TAI total score, subscores (wheelchair setup, body setup, flight/landing), and item scores (15 items). RESULTS: Moderate to excellent reliability was found when scoring remotely for TAI total and subscores for intrarater (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(3,1)=0.687-0.854), test-retest (ICC(3,1)=0.695-0.836), and interrater reliability (ICC(3,5)=0.746-0.962). Remote rater total score and flight/landing subscore were greater (indicating higher transfer quality) compared to the average in-person raters (P=.021 and P=.005, respectively). There were no differences between transfers 1-3 in remote rater scores. Item-level percentage agreement between the remote rater and in-person exceeded the 75% cutoff for clinical utility for all items. CONCLUSIONS: The TAI is a reliable outcome measure for assessing transfer technique remotely.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability, standard error of measurement, minimum detectable change, and item-level consistency of the Transfer Assessment Instrument (TAI) version 4.0 when used to evaluate transfer quality remotely. DESIGN: Participants transferred from their wheelchair to a mat table (transfer 1), repeated this after a 10-minute delay to assess intrarater reliability (transfer 2), and repeated this 1-2 days later to assess test-retest reliability (transfer 3). Each transfer was scored in person by 4 raters and asynchronously by a remote clinician rater. SETTING: 2017 National Veterans Wheelchair Games. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 44 full-time wheelchair users (N=44). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: TAI total score, subscores (wheelchair setup, body setup, flight/landing), and item scores (15 items). RESULTS: Moderate to excellent reliability was found when scoring remotely for TAI total and subscores for intrarater (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(3,1)=0.687-0.854), test-retest (ICC(3,1)=0.695-0.836), and interrater reliability (ICC(3,5)=0.746-0.962). Remote rater total score and flight/landing subscore were greater (indicating higher transfer quality) compared to the average in-person raters (P=.021 and P=.005, respectively). There were no differences between transfers 1-3 in remote rater scores. Item-level percentage agreement between the remote rater and in-person exceeded the 75% cutoff for clinical utility for all items. CONCLUSIONS: The TAI is a reliable outcome measure for assessing transfer technique remotely.
Authors: Nuray Yozbatiran; Eric T Harness; Vu Le; Daniel Luu; Crista V Lopes; Steven C Cramer Journal: J Telemed Telecare Date: 2010 Impact factor: 6.184
Authors: H Jagos; V David; M Haller; S Kotzian; M Hofmann; S Schlossarek; K Eichholzer; M Winkler; M Frohner; M Reichel; W Mayr; D Rafolt Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Stephanie K Rigot; Lynn A Worobey; Michael L Boninger; Susan Robinson-Whelen; Mary Jo Roach; Allen W Heinemann; Gina McKernan Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2021-05-29 Impact factor: 3.966
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: Stephanie K Rigot; Lynn A Worobey; Michael L Boninger; Susan Robinson-Whelen; Mary Jo Roach; Allen W Heinemann; Gina McKernan Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2021-05-29 Impact factor: 3.966