Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 856

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reliability of assessment tools in rehabilitation: an illustration of appropriate statistical analyses

Rankin, Gabrielle, Stokes, Maria·1998·Clinical Rehabilitation

Abstract

Objective: To provide a practical guide to appropriate statistical analysis of a reliability study using real-time ultrasound for measuring muscle size as an example. Design: Inter-rater and intra-rater (between-scans and between-days) reliability. Subjects: Ten normal subjects (five male) aged 22–58 years. Method: The cross-sectional area (CSA) of the anterior tibial muscle group was measured using real-time ultrasonography. Main outcome measures: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ICCs, and Bland and Altman method for assessing agreement, which includes calculation of the mean difference between measures ( d), the 95% CI for d, the standard deviation of the differences (SD diff), the 95% limits of agreement and a reliability coefficient. Results: Inter-rater reliability was high, ICC (3,1) was 0.92 with a 95% CI of 0.72 → 0.98. There was reasonable agreement between measures on the Bland and Altman test, as d was -0.63 cm 2, the 95% CI for d was -1.4 → 0.14 cm 2, the SD diff was 1.08 cm 2, the 95% limits of agreement -2.73 → 1.53 cm 2 and the reliability coefficient was 2.4. Between-scans repeatability was high, ICCs (1,1) were 0.94 and 0.93 with 95% CIs of 0.8 → 0.99 and 0.75 → 0.98, for days 1 and 2 respectively. Measures showed good agreement on the Bland and Altman test: d for day 1 was 0.15 cm 2 and for day 2 it was -0.32 cm 2, the 95% CIs for d were -0.51 → 0.81 cm 2 for day 1 and -0.98 → 0.34 cm 2 for day 2; SD diff was 0.93 cm 2 for both days, the 95% limits of agreement were -1.71 → 2.01 cm 2 for day 1 and -2.18 → 1.54 cm 2 for day 2; the reliability coefficient was 1.80 for day 1 and 1.88 for day 2. The between-days ICC (1,2) was 0.92 and the 95% CI 0.69 0.98. The d was -0.98 cm 2, the SD diff was 1.25 cm 2 with 95% limits of agreement of -3.48 → 1.52 cm 2 and the reliability coefficient 2.8. The 95% CI for d(-1.88 → -0.08 cm 2) and the distribution graph showed a bias towards a larger measurement on day 2. Conclusions: The ICC and Bland and Altman tests are appropriate for analysis of reliability studies of similar design to that described, but neither test alone provides sufficient information and it is recommended that both are used.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1191/026921598672178340

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 856

Metadata

Authors
Rankin, G., & Stokes, M.
Venue
Clinical Rehabilitation
Published
1998-06
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
187-199
ISSN
  • 0269-2155 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0873
OpenAlex
W2144523708
Cited by
856
References
2
FWCI
15.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reliability of assessment tools in rehabilitation: an illustration of appropriate statistical analyses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1191/026921598672178340
The paper
Rankin, G., & Stokes, M. (1998). Reliability of assessment tools in rehabilitation: an illustration of appropriate statistical analyses. Clinical Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1191/026921598672178340

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.