The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
QUANTIFYING TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY USING THE INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENT AND THE SEM
Abstract
Reliability, the consistency of a test or measurement, is frequently quantified in the movement sciences literature. A common metric is the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). In addition, the SEM, which can be calculated from the ICC, is also frequently reported in reliability studies. However, there are several versions of the ICC, and confusion exists in the movement sciences regarding which ICC to use. Further, the utility of the SEM is not fully appreciated. In this review, the basics of classic reliability theory are addressed in the context of choosing and interpreting an ICC. The primary distinction between ICC equations is argued to be one concerning the inclusion (equations 2,1 and 2,k) or exclusion (equations 3,1 and 3,k) of systematic error in the denominator of the ICC equation. Inferential tests of mean differences, which are performed in the process of deriving the necessary variance components for the calculation of ICC values, are useful to determine if systematic error is present. If so, the measurement schedule should be modified (removing trials where learning and/or fatigue effects are present) to remove systematic error, and ICC equations that only consider random error may be safely used. The use of ICC values is discussed in the context of estimating the effects of measurement error on sample size, statistical power, and correlation attenuation. Finally, calculation and application of the SEM are discussed. It is shown how the SEM and its variants can be used to construct confidence intervals for individual scores and to determine the minimal difference needed to be exhibited for one to be confident that a true change in performance of an individual has occurred.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Measures of Reliability in Sports Medicine and Science
Hopkins, W. G. (2000) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.2165/00007256-200030010-00001 · Cited by 4,635
Reliability: what is it, and how is it measured?
Bruton, A., Conway, J. H., & Holgate, S. T. (2000) · Physiotherapy · doi:10.1016/s0031-9406(05)61211-4 · Cited by 763
Cited by
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149 · Cited by 5,925
Development and validation of the user version of the Mobile application rating scale (uMARS)
Stoyanov, S. R., Hides, L., Kavanagh, D. J., & Wilson, H. (2016) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.5849 · Cited by 872
“Interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) [16-18] were used, as they provide weighted values of rater agreement and assess proximity rather than equality of ratings.”
Zuo, X.-N., Kelly, C., Adelstein, J. S., Klein, D. F., Castellanos, F. X., & Milham, M. P. (2010) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.080 · Cited by 744
Perceived Stress Scale: Reliability and Validity Study in Brazil
Siqueira Reis, R., Ferreira Hino, A. A., & Romélio Rodriguez Añez, C. (2010) · Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1177/1359105309346343 · Cited by 698
Swami, V., & Barron, D. (2019) · Body Image · doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.08.014 · Cited by 454
Metadata
- Authors
- WEIR, J. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
- Published
- 2005-02
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 231-240
- ISSN
- 1064-8011 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1980721081
- Cited by
- 4,842
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 33.18
- 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
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.