Inter-day reliability of the Upper Body Test for shoulder and pelvic girdle stability in adults

Abstract

Background: There are a limited number of tests for the assessment of shoulder and pelvic girdle stability. Reliable instruments are important to evaluate movement dysfunction at these joints in order to provide more objective parameters. Objective: To evaluate the inter-day reliability of the Upper Body Test in young adults. Methods: A reliability study was carried out with three assessments of the shoulder and pelvic girdle stability within 48-h intervals (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday). The OctoBalance ® platform was used to perform the Upper Body Test in 31 active young adults (24.5 ± 8 years). Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC 2,2) two-way mixed model, Coefficient of Variation, and Bland-Altman plots were used to verify the reliability of the test. The standard error of measurement (SEM) and the minimum detectable difference (MDD 95%) were calculated for clinical applicability. Results: The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient ranged from 0.87 to 0.94-Featuring a mean difference of 0.89 (95%CI = −0.19-1.97) to left and 0.95 (95%CI = −0.38-2.27) for the right side, with a low variation coefficient (3.31-5.91%) between the second and third days of assessment. There was a statistically significant difference between the first assessment day and the other test sessions. The Bland-Altman analyses revealed low bias with scores within the limits of agreement. Minimum detectable difference scores were between 4.02 and 5.10, and standard error of measurement between 1.75 and 2.72, depending on the movement side. Conclusion: The Upper Body Test presented good inter-day reliability for assessing the stability of the shoulder and pelvic girdle in young active healthy adults.

French validation of the Weight Efficacy Life-Style questionnaire (WEL): Links with mood, self-esteem and stress among the general population and a clinical sample of individuals with overweight and obesity

“…The interpretation of its value was based on the following criteria: α < 0.60—unacceptable; 0.60 > α > 0.70—correct; 0.70 > α > 0.80—satisfactory; 0.80 > α > 0.90—very good; α > 0.95—problematic [ 91 ]. Furthermore, the reliability of the scale was considered satisfactory if the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC), measured between even and odd items, was greater than 0.70 [ 92 , 93 ]. Sensibility was investigated by performing discrimination analysis of items and by calculating the Ferguson’s δ coefficient.…”

Reprodutibilidade de medidas do controle inibitório, memória de trabalho e flexibilidade cognitiva em mulheres idosas

“…The sample size was calculated using the G*Power 3.1.9.7 software based on an unpublished pilot study, considering an alpha error of 0.05, power of 0.95, and the ratio between the alternative and null hypothesis equivalent to 0,35 resulting in a minimum sample of 27 participants [29,30]. This sample calculation method was previously used by Fontes et al [31]. All data were analyzed using the JAMOVI software, version 2.3.16.…”

Assessing Orthorexia Nervosa: Validation of the Polish Version of the Eating Habits Questionnaire in a General Population Sample

“…The reliability of the Polish version of the EHQ scale was explored using the split-half method and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α). The reliability of the scale was considered to be good if the interclass correlation coefficient, measured between even and odd items, was greater than 0.70 [ 63 , 64 ]. The internal consistency of the scale was interpreted based on the following Cronbach’s alpha criteria: α < 0.60—unacceptable; 0.60 > α > 0.70—correct; 0.70 > α > 0.80—satisfactory; 0.80 > α > 0.90—very good; α > 0.95—problematic [ 65 ].…”