Objective To evaluate the validity and reliability of the Dutch STarT MSK tool in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care physiotherapy. Methods Physiotherapists included patients with musculoskeletal pain, aged 18 years or older. Patients completed a questionnaire at baseline and follow-up at 5 days and 3 months, respectively. Construct validity was assessed by comparing scores of STarT MSK items with reference questionnaires. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to test predefined hypotheses. Test-retest reliability was evaluated by calculating quadratic-weighted kappa coefficients for overall STarT MSK tool scores (range 0–12) and prognostic subgroups (low, medium and high risk). Predictive validity was assessed by calculating relative risk ratios for moderate risk and high risk, both compared with low risk, in their ability to predict persisting disability at 3 months. Results In total, 142 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, 74 patients (52.1%) were categorised as low risk, 64 (45.1%) as medium risk and 4 (2.8%) as high risk. For construct validity, nine of the eleven predefined hypotheses were confirmed. For test-retest reliability, kappa coefficients for the overall tool scores and prognostic subgroups were 0.71 and 0.65, respectively. For predictive validity, relative risk ratios for persisting disability were 2.19 (95% CI: 1.10–4.38) for the medium-risk group and 7.30 (95% CI: 4.11–12.98) for the highrisk group. Conclusion The Dutch STarT MSK tool showed a sufficient to good validity and reliability in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care physiotherapy. The sample size for high-risk patients was small (n = 4), which may limit the generalisability of findings for this group. An external validation study with a larger sample of high-risk patients (�50) is recommended.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We aimed to investigate the test-retest reliability and validity of ultrasound for two commonly used types of transducer, using different methods for the estimation of muscle size and echo intensity (EI).METHODS: Fourteen healthy adults were included in this study. Ultrasound images of the rectus femoris size (thickness in cm and cross-sectional area [CSA] in cm2), obtained at the mid-thigh, were validated against MRI. Both a linear and a curved array transducer were used to assess rectus femoris size and EI (values 0-255, higher scores indicating increased intramuscular fat and interstitial fibrous tissue). To assess test-retest reliability of ultrasound, participants were tested twice, with a one-week interval. Validity and reliability were evaluated using paired sample t-tests, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland-Altman plots.RESULTS: No significant differences between the repeated evaluations of rectus femoris thickness, CSA and EI were found. Reliability for thickness and CSA evaluations was excellent for both transducers (ICC = 0.87-0.97) and moderate for EI (ICC = 0.42-0.44). Mean difference between MRI and ultrasound for CSA (curved = 0.59 cm2, p = 0.086; linear = 2.1 cm2, p = 0.002) and thickness (curved = 0.31 cm, p = 0.01; linear = 0.21 cm, p = 0.043) were small but significant, except for CSA using a curved transducer. Agreement between ultrasound and MRI ranged from moderate for thickness (ICC = 0.45) to excellent for CSA (ICC = 0.92).CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that the test-retest reliability and validity of muscle size estimation by ultrasound for both curved and linear array transducers seems to be adequate. Future studies should focus on the longitudinal evaluation of muscle size and EI by ultrasound.
Purpose: The main purpose of the research was to measure reliability and validity of the Scoring Rubric for Information Literacy (Van Helvoort, 2010). Design/methodology/approach: Percentages of agreement and Intraclass Correlation were used to describe interrater reliability. For the determination of construct validity, factor analysis and reliability analysis were used. Criterion validity was calculated with Pearson correlations. Findings: In the described case, the Scoring Rubric for Information Literacy appears to be a reliable and valid instrument for the assessment of information literate performance. Originality/value: Reliability and validity are prerequisites to recommend a rubric for application. The results confirm that this Scoring Rubric for Information Literacy can be used in courses in higher education, not only for assessment purposes but also to foster learning. Oorspronkelijke artikel bij Emerald te vinden bij http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JD-05-2016-0066
MULTIFILE