PURPOSE: The Nasality Severity Index 2.0 (NSI 2.0) forms a new, multiparametric approach in the assessment of hypernasality. To enable clinical implementation of this index, the short- and long-term test-retest reliability of this index was explored. METHODS: In 40 normal-speaking adults (mean age 32y, SD 11, 18-56y) and 29 normal-speaking children (mean age 8y, SD 2, 4-12y), the acoustic parameters included in the NSI 2.0 (i.e. nasalance of the vowel /u/ and an oral text, and the voice low tone to high tone ratio (VLHR) of the vowel /i/) were obtained twice at the same test moment and during a second assessment two weeks later. After determination of the NSI 2.0, a comprehensive set of statistical measures was applied to determine its reliability. RESULTS: Long-term variability of the NSI 2.0 and its parameters was slightly higher compared to the short-term variability, both in adults and in children. Overall, a difference of 2.82 for adults and 2.68 for children between the results of two consecutive measurements can be interpreted as a genuine change. With an ICC of 0.84 in adults and 0.77 in children, the NSI 2.0 additionally shows an excellent relative consistency. No statistically significant difference was withheld in the reliability of test-retest measurements between adults and children. CONCLUSION: Reliable test-retest measurements of the NSI 2.0 can be performed. Consequently, the NSI 2.0 can be applied in clinical practice, in which successive NSI 2.0 scores can be reliably compared and interpreted. LEARNING OUTCOMES: The reader will be able to describe and discuss both the short-term and long-term test-retest reliability of the Nasality Severity Index 2.0, a new multiparametric approach to hypernasality, and its parameters. Based on this information, the NSI 2.0 can be applied in clinical practice, in which successive NSI 2.0 scores, e.g. before and after surgery or speech therapy, can be compared and interpreted.
DOCUMENT
In The Netherlands, the 4-Skills Scan is an instrument for physical education teachers to assess gross motor skills of elementary school children. Little is known about its reliability. Therefore, in this study the test–retest and inter-rater reliability was determined. Respectively, 624 and 557 Dutch 6- to 12-year-old children were analyzed for test re-test and inter-rater reliability. All tests took place within the school setting. The outcome measure was age-expected motor performance (in years). Results showed a small practice effect of .24 years for re-test sessions and assessment of motor skills was possible with acceptable precision (standard error of measurement = .67 years). Overall, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was .93 (95% confidence interval: .92–.95) for test–retest reliability and .97 for inter-rater reliability. For the repeated measures, the smallest detectable change (SDC) was 1.84 and limits of agreement were –1.60 and 2.08 years. It can be concluded that the 4-Skills Scan is a reliable instrument to assess gross motor skills in elementary school children.
DOCUMENT
Background: Lymphedema measurement is vital to select appropriate treatment and monitor its progress. Quantifying lymphedema in the head and neck area is challenging. The use of tissue dielectric constant (TDC) measurements has shown promising results in other body areas. This study aims to determine the test-retest reliability of a TDC measurement protocol developed for the head and neck area. Methods and Results: A detailed measurement protocol, including eight measurement points per side, was developed. Subsequently, the reliability of the protocol was tested in a sample of healthy participants (n = 50, 28 males). Using the LymphScanner (Delfin, Finland), participants were subjected to two measurement sessions. Each measurement point was measured three times per session. Test-retest reliability for each point was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and standard errors of measurement (SEMs). Using the average of three measurements, reliability was good to excellent for all points (ICCs 0.81–0.95), with small measurement errors (SEMs 1.51–2.86). The reliability of a single measurement was moderate to excellent for all measurement points (ICCs 0.58–0.87), with larger, but still small, measurement errors (SEMs 1.65–3.39). When using single measurements, the lowest ICCs were found for the temporal (left 0.73 and right 0.67) and submandibular (left 0.58 and right 0.77) locations. Conclusion: Measurements with the LymphScanner, taken according to the developed protocol, are reliable in healthy participants. We recommend using the average of three measurements to optimize reliability. The protocol is fit for further testing in patient populations and for determining normal values in a larger scale study with healthy subjects.
DOCUMENT
