1 / 5

Helen Y. N. Lindner, PhD; Ann Langius-Eklöf, PhD; Liselotte M. N. Hermansson, PhD

Test-retest reliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control version 2.0. Helen Y. N. Lindner, PhD; Ann Langius-Eklöf, PhD; Liselotte M. N. Hermansson, PhD. Aim

gage-robles
Download Presentation

Helen Y. N. Lindner, PhD; Ann Langius-Eklöf, PhD; Liselotte M. N. Hermansson, PhD

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Test-retest reliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control version 2.0 Helen Y. N. Lindner, PhD; Ann Langius-Eklöf, PhD; Liselotte M. N. Hermansson, PhD

  2. Aim • Evaluate test-retest reliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control (ACMC) version 2.0. • Relevance • ACMC is an observation-based assessment that evaluates ability to control myoelectric prosthetic hand in bimanual activities • Stability of ACMC measures has not been evaluated over time.

  3. Method • Upper-limb prosthesis users: • Performed standardized activity twice, 2 to 5 wk apart. • Activity performances were: • Video recorded. • Assessed by 2 ACMC raters. • Data were analyzed by: • Weighted kappa. • Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). • Bland-Altman.

  4. Results • Test-retest reliability • Weighted kappa: fair to excellent. • ICC: 0.94. • Bland-Altman: 1 user outside limits of agreement. • Minimal detectable change (MDC):0.55 logits (1 rater) and 0.69 logits (2 raters). • Interrater reliability • Weighted kappa agreements: fair to excellent. • ICC: 0.95 (test) and 0.92 (retest). • Intrarater agreement • Excellent.

  5. Conclusion • Evidence regarding stability of ACMC version 2.0 measures over time is satisfactory. • MDC value can be clinically useful. • Further research is needed to determine: • Minimal clinically important difference. • Responsiveness of ACMC.

More Related